This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library] On: 09 February 2015, At: 04:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Concrete Operational Thought in Children With Learning Disabilities and Children With Normal Achievement a
a
Jane Williams , Sam B. Morgan & Roger A. Kalthoff
a
a
Department of Psychology , Memphis State University Published online: 21 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Jane Williams , Sam B. Morgan & Roger A. Kalthoff (1992) Concrete Operational Thought in Children With Learning Disabilities and Children With Normal Achievement, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 153:1, 87-102, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1992.10753704 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1992.10753704
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, / 53( I). 87- 102
Concrete Operational Thought in Children With Learning Disabilities and Children With Normal Achievement JANE WILLIAMS SAM B. MORGAN ROGER A. KALTHOFF Department of Psychology Memphis State University
ABSTRACT. This study compared Piagetian cognitive development in normal ach iev ing ch il dren and two groups of children with learning disabilities designated as e ither auditory-linguistic or visual-spatial o n the basis of Verbal-Performance IQ d ifferences on th e Wechsler Inte lligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; 1974). The two groups with learning disabilities were matched with normal achieving con trol s on intelligence , soc ioeco nomic status , sex , race, and age . Piagetian tasks measuring conservation , seriation , and classification were administered to each c hild to determine level of operative thought. The auditory-linguistic group scored significantl y below normal contro ls in operativity, and signifi cantly fewer were at a co ncrete operational level on a conservati on of length task than were normal achieving c hildren . T he visua l-spatial gro up did not differ significantl y from normal controls . These res ults suggest that auditory-linguistic disabilities may be more detrimental than vis ual-spatial disabilities to development of operativit y.
THE CONSTRU CTIVIST PERSPECTIVE of Jean Piaget has been one of the most frequently cited theories of cognitive development in children. Piaget ( 1973 ; Piaget & Inhe lder, 1969) postulated that thought processes are reorganized and transformed during four universal and invariant stages of cogni ti ve development. Piaget 's third stage , the concrete operational period , is felt to be espec iall y important because of its relationship to the beginning of formal ed ucation. During this stage, the child relies less heavily on the figurative aspects of thought , with perceptual features becoming less salient; he or she engages more and more in operative thought , which involves concept ualization and analyti ca l thinking. Three signific ant cogniti ve operations 87
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
88
Th e Journal of Genetic Psycholog y
that emerge during this stage are conservation , classification , and seriation . The child also begins to focus on several aspects of a situation simultaneously and is capable of reversibility of thought. Piaget's theory of cognitive development is held to be applicable to all populations of children . Evidence indicates that children with exceptionalities , such as mental retardation , pass through the same cognitive stages in precisely the same order as normal children , but at a slower rate and with a lower ceiling reached (Morgan, 1986). However, exceptions to this similarsequence hypothesis have been proposed for other disorders , such as autism and childhood psychosis (Cowan , 1978 ; Morgan , 1986; Reid , 1981 ). Morgan ( 1986) postulated that autism may reflect arrested development in operative functioning while figurative functioning continues to progress . This early arrest interferes with subsequent development of higher level conceptual , symbolic , and social skills. Controversy exists concerning the role of cognitive deve lopment in learning disabilities , which involve a discrepancy between measured abilities and actual academic achievement. Some theorists (e .g . , Hresko & Reid , 1981) have advocated a similar-sequence hypothesis of cognitive development in children with learning disabilities . These theori sts contend that the difficulties these children ex perience result from a maturational lag that is reflected in an overall delay in cognitive development. In contrast to individual s who are mentally retarded, the delays of children with learning disabilities tend to be minimal , and the children may eventually achieve normal developmental progress (Hresko & Reid , 1981) . Other theorists have not found evidence to support a developmental lag position , but rather have found longstanding performance differentials between childre n with learning disabilities and normal achieving children . Leonard ·( 1984) found performance on classification tasks in favor of normal achieving children through the age of 15 years , and Braude-Kremberg (1984) fo und performance deficits on Piagetian tasks of conservation, classification , and seriation for children with learning disabilities across three ages. Brekke , Williams, Johnson, and Johnson (1976) likewise found that children with learning disabilities were delayed on three measures of conservation of weight when compared with normal achieving controls. However, none of the studies cited thus far considered the possible heterogeneity of the learning disabled samples , and few controlled for intelligence.
This research was partially supported by a Center of Excellence Gram f rom rhe state of Tennessee to the D epartment of Psychology, Memphis State University. We thank Marilyn Johnson for her help in collecting data for this project. Address correspondence to Jane Williams , who is now ar the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Department of Pediatrics . 800 Marshall , Little Rock, AR 72202.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Williams, Morgan, & Kalthoff
89
In a stud y in which children with learning di sabilities and children with normal achievement were matched on age, sex, socioeconomic status (SES) , and inte lligence, Chabot ( 1977) found that students with learning disabilities performed significantly poorer on Piagetian tasks involving transitivity and eq uivalence. They demonstrated severe performance defic its on seriation and conservation of number tasks. Chabot reported that these children had substantial difficulty in verbally justifying their responses. Klees and Lebrun ( 1972) studied childre n with reading disabilities and concluded that these children displayed a general overall delay in operative thought , which they attributed to spec ific di sturbances in figurative function s of thinking . Instead of cons idering the verbal aspects of questions , the children with reading di sabilities were dominated by their perceptive impressions. Klees and Lebrun proposed that thi s reliance on perception hindered the transformation to a more operative stage of development. However, there was wide variability in performance by these children, and those who did not demonstrate severe problems with figurative thought did not display delays in operativity. In contrast to these findings of delayed cognitive development , Swicegood and Crump (1984) found no significant differences between the performance of children with learning disabilities and the performance of normal ac hieving students on 10 Piagetian tasks at three different age levels. Other theorists (Me ltzer, 1978 ; Trepanier & Liben , 1979) have contended that learning disabilities result from specific deficits that affect isolated areas of cognition. Therefore , children with learning disabilities do not demonstrate a delay of overall acquisition of operativity but rather experience delays or deficits in specific cognitive skills . Meltzer ( 1978) compared normal control s with children who had learning disabilities in the form of perceptual deficits . On task s involving visual perception , children with learning disabiliti es performed significantly poorer than the normal children ; however, performance on Piagetian tasks was equivalent for both groups. Meltzer concl uded that the children with learning disabilities did not demonstrate an impairment affecting the acquisition of logical reasoning but showed an information processing deficit that interfered with specific cognitive skills, such as the reading of symbols. Nigl and Fishbein ( 1979) simi larly studied children who were selected only if they demonstrated specific perceptual-motor or spati al problems. The children's performance on the Piagetian coordination of perspectives tasks was not significantly different from that of normal children. Trepanier and Liben ( 1979) compared children with learning disabilities and normal controls who had all reached the concrete operational stage of thought. The children with learning disabilities were selected only if they demonstrated deficits in visual memory. When given standard Piagetian memory tasks that required operative thought , the children with learning di sabilities performed at an equivalent level to normal control s. However, when arbitrary visual memory tasks were presented that did not require concrete
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
90
Th e
Jo t~ m
ol of Genetic Psrchologv
operation s, children with learnin g di sabilities performed signific antly below norm al ac hiev in g children. Th ese studies suggest normal deve lopment of operati ve thought in children with learning disabilities. but with deficit s in specifi c cognit ive sk ills, particularly the process ing of vi sual-spati al informati on. These research results. concerning both overall level of cog nitive development as we ll as specifi c defic its, appear to be highl y conflictual. Failure to consider the heterogene it y of the learning di sabled population may have been a signifi cant co ntributor to the inconsistent outcomes . Some ev idence supports the view th at most children with learning di sabilities can be classified into clinically meanin gful subt ypes on the bas is of their neuropsyc hological strengt hs and weaknesses on a variety of measures (Rourke , 1985 ). The two major subtypes that have emerged from the literature are referred to variously as auditory- Iin gui stic versus visual-spatial (Pirozzo lo , 1981 ), dy sphonetic vers us dyseideti c (Soder, 1973), or verbal-linguistic versus visual- spatial (Rourke. 1983 ) One subt ype is predominantl y impaired in verbal areas, whereas the other is predomin antly impaired in nonverbal areas. We fou nd onl y one stud y (Silvius , 1977) that investi gated the performance of children with subtypes of learning disabilities on Piagetian tas ks. Groups of ch ildren wi th verbal learning di sabilities, nonverbal learning di sabil ities , and no lea rnin g disabilities were compared in their performance on nine conservati on tasks. Both groups of children with learning di sabilities scored significantly below children with no learning disabilities on overall leve l of cogniti ve development. The learning di sabled groups were distingui shed from eac h other by the significantly lower performance of children with verbal learnin g di sabilities on a conservation of length task and the signi fican tl y lower performance of children with nonverbal learnin g di sabilities on a co nservation of area tas k. A finding that appeared to refl ect the importance of integration in cog nitive functions was that as the abso lute discrepancy between verbal and performance skill s increased , the leve l of conservation signifi cantl y dec reased .
Relationship Between Cognitive Development and Academic Achievement
Researchers have proposed th at attainment of the concrete operational stage of cogniti ve development may be necessary for achievement in vari ous aspec ts of readin g and math skill s (A rlin , 198 1). Moderate co rrelat ions have been found betwee n perform ance on classification, seri ati on, and co nservation tasks and academic ac hieve ment (Goldschmid & Bentl er, 1968 ) Riley ( 1984) found a sig nifi cant pos iti ve relationship between cogniti ve ability leve l, as meas ured by Piagetian tas ks, and readin g and math ac hi eve ment ;
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Williams, Morgan , & K althoff
91
however, math achievement accounted for a far greater proportio n of the varIance. Saxe and Shahee n ( 198 1) found that children dela yed in advancement to a concrete operational leve l were inhibited in acquisition of numerical skills but that reading skills were not directly dependent o n stage transition . Other researc h has demon strated a positive correlation between reading performance and concrete operational thought (Roberts, 1984). On the basis of research findings thu s far, it is not poss ible to conclude defi nitel y that concrete operational thoug ht is a prerequisite for reading. Because preoperational children have bee n shown to be capable of learning to read words , operativity may be a sufficient but not necessary condition for reading . The beginning reader appears to rel y heavil y on visual and perceptual cues to recognize words. This reliance on figurative aspects allows the preoperational child to decode and rotely read word s (Byrd & Ghol son , 1984; Roberts , 1984) . For the co mprehension of textual material, however, conceptual knowledge based on concrete operations may be needed . Byrd and Gholson (1984) postulated that during the concrete stage of development there is an integration of information from both perceptual and conceptual sources . Concrete thought allows the child to combine the fig urative and operative aspects involved in reading. The purpose of thi s stud y was to explore the similarities and differences in cognitive development, as assessed through Piagetian tasks, of children with learning disabilities and c hildren with normal achievement. These tasks were chosen because they have been found to be valid measures of overall cog nitive development and to contribute significantly to the prediction of early math and reading skill s. In contrast to previous research , the heterogene ity of the learning disabled population was addressed through the use of two subtypes because it was felt that this dimension might clarify many of the conflicting findings concerning cognitive development in children with learning disabilities. The two subtypes , referred to as auditory-linguistic and visual-spatial , were defined with reference to the children's patterns of performance on the Wec hsler Intelligence Sca le for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974). The WISC-R is viewed as an essential measure for identifying pattern s of strength s and weaknesses in children with learning disabilities , and it contributes heav ily to the diagnosis of learning disabilities as well as to the class ification of subtypes (Rattan & Dean, 1987).
Method Subjects Subjects were 69 children e nro lled in the first through third grades in a metropo litan schoo l system . The c hildre n ranged in age from 7 to 9 years, and
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
92
Th e Jo urnal of Genetic Ps ychology
the sex rati o was approx imately 4 boys to I girl , which is representati ve of the occ urrence of learnin g disabilities as reported in the literature (Benton, 1978) Rac ial compos ition was 36% Black and 64% White. Subjects were di vided into three groups consisting of two groups of chil dre n with learning disabilities and one group of children with norm al ac hievement. Children in the learning disabled groups were currentl y pl aced in special educati on classes and had met the Tennessee State Department of Ed ucati on ( 1982) stand ards for learning di sability. These criteria included (a) significant discrepancy (one standard deviation) between ac hievement in one or more academi c areas and general intellectual functi oning, with achievement being lower; (b) normal general intelli gence; and (c) no indication of sensory and motor defects, of environmental, cultural, or economic di sadvantage, of emoti onal di sturbance, or of insuffi cient teachin g that could account fo r the learning defi cit. All of the students with learning di sabilities in thi s study met these criteri a except for 4 students whose di screpancy was between academic performance and either the WIS C-R Verbal or Performance IQ rather than the Full Scale IQ . Table I summari zes the subject characteristics of the three groups. The visual-spatial learn ing di sabled group (n = 20) consisted of chil dren who displayed a signi ficant WISC-R Verbal > Performance IQ di sc repancy (M = 18. I). The audi tory-linguistic learning di sabled group (n = 23) consisted of children who di splayed a signifi cant Verbal < Performance IQ discrepancy (M = 23.6 1). The normal control group (n = 26) consisted of children who demonstrated normal achievement , were not eli gible for any type of spec ial education services, and did not di splay a significant discrepancy between Verbal and Performance IQs. There were an additional 21 subjects who met the study criteri a for normal ac hiev ing children but demonstrated signi fica nt discrepancies between Verbal and Performance IQs. They were included onl y in the analyses for predictors of earl y academic achievement .
Procedure
Parents were contacted and asked to complete a questionn aire concerning demographic informati on, which was used to determine SES (Hollingshead, 1975) . After parental perm iss ion was received, eac h child was indi vidu all y adm inistered Piagetian tasks and intell ectuall y assessed with the WISC-R. Ac hievement scores were obtained by indi vidual adm inistration of the Reading Recog ni tion, Reading Co mprehension, and Math scales of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Pl AT; Dunn & Markwardt , 1970), as well as the math and spelling secti ons of the Wide Range Achievement Test- Rev ised (WRAT-R; Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984).
Williams , Morgan. & Kalthoff
93
TABLE I Subject Characteristics of the Three Groups
Characteristic
Visual-spatial (n = 20)
Group Auditorylingui sitic (n = 23)
Normal control s (n = 26)
100.85 6.95 87- 109
101.00 5.61 9 1- 111
98 .50 7.55 87- 111
35.85 12.8 1 16--63
35.52 11.24 13-53
37.00 9.44 20-57
98 .2 12.33 80-126
97 .04 12.55 80-124
102.20 9 .1 6 86-- 123
107.10 11 .02 9 1- 133
86 .52 12 .27 70-112
101 .69 8.82 84- 120
89.00 11.52 7 1- 114
110 .00 12. 17 93-132
102 .73 8.44 90-126
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Age (in months) M
SD Range SES M
SD Range Full Scale IQ M
SD Range Verbal IQ M
SD Range Performance IQ M
SD Range Note. SES
= soc ioeco nomic
status .
Piagetian Tasks Nine Piagetian tasks were chosen to assess the children's level s of cognitive development. A standardized format was followed for administration of each task. The following tasks assessed the area of conservation.
Number (Piaget, lnhelder, & Szeminska, 1948). Two parallel rows of six plastic chips were presented , with the rows appearing equal in length . One row of chips was spread further apart , and the child was asked whether the rows were now eq ual and why. One row was then constricted, and the questions were repeated. The last transformation involved making a circle of one of the rows and agai n asking equivalence questions. Quantity (Brainerd, 1978) . Two identical glasses containing equal amounts of water were presented. The contents of one glass were poured into a tall ,
94
The l o u mo l of Genelic Psvcho/ogv
thin glass , and the child was asked whether or not the two glasses contained eq ual amounts of water and why.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Lengrh (P iager era/. , 1948). Two equivalent strips of lightweight cardboard were presented in a parallel position so that their end points corresponded. One strip was folded into a W shape , and the child was asked whether the strips were the same length and why. Weigh! (Formanek & Gurian, 1976). Two identical balls of clay were placed on a set of balance scales, which demonstrated an equality of weight. The balls were removed from the scales, and one ball was formed into a sausage shape. The child was asked whether the two pieces of clay weighed the same amount and why. Volum e (Piager era/. , 1948 ). Two identical glasses containing equal amounts of water were presented with two identical balls of clay placed in front of the glasses . One ball was dropped into one of the glasses , and the second ball was flattened into a p_ancake shape. The child was asked whether the water in the second glass would rise to the level in the first glass if the pancake-shaped clay was dropped into it and why. The following tasks assessed the area of seriation. Single seriarion (Fo rmanek & Gurian , 1976) . Eight rods, ranging in length from 4 to 7 lf2 in., were presented in an arbitrary sequence . The child was asked to arrange the rods in the correct order. Mulriple seriarion (Formanek & Gurian , 1976) . Sixteen pictures of cars, which were identical except for differences in size and color intensity, were presented to the child . The child was asked to arrange the cars in the correct order and then to verbally indicate the two dimensions used. The following tasks assessed the area of classification. Single classificarion (Brainerd, 1978). An array consisting of 6 toy animals and 6 toy vehicles was presented. The child was asked to sort the 12 objects into two mutually exclusive categories and to explain why the objects were sorted in that particular pattern. Class inclusion (Brainerd, 1978) . A collection of 10 plastic farm animals consi sting of 8 horses and 2 cows was presented to the child. After the child affi rmed that all the plastic objects were animals, he or she was asked whether there were more horses or animals and why.
Williams, Morgan , & Kalthoff
95
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Scoring and Reliability On each of the Piagetian tasks , the child was evaluated on the correctness of response as well as the appropriateness of his or her explanation for the answer given (Arlin, 1981 ; Fincham , 1979; Goldschmid & Bentler, 1968; Kingma & Koops , 1983 ; Swicegood & Crump, 1984) . A bipartite scoring system was used in which the child received I point if an incorrect response was made or if a correct response was made but an incorrect explanation was given. The child received 2 points if a correct response was made along with an appropriate explanation. A total of 18 points was possible . Reliability of the Piagetian tasks was established by evaluating 16 normal achiev ing chi ldren who fell within the age range of children included in the stud y. These children were retested after a 2-week interval, and test-retest reliab ility for total scores was . 92 (p < .00 I) . In no case did any child change a correct response between the initial and retesting phases . Each protocol for all administrations (N = 140) of the Piagetian tasks was scored twice. The second scoring was completed by the examiner who did not administer the tasks, and scorer agreement was 98 % .
Results Demographic Variables A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), performed for the three groups across the characteristics presented in Table I , indicated significant differences(WilksA. = .079) , F(I2, 106) = 22.54 ,p< .001. Nodifferences between groups were found on variables of age , SES, or Full Scale IQ, but, as ex pected , significant differences were found for Verbal IQ , F(2 , 66) = 21.27 , p < .001. A Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed that the auditorylinguistic group had a significantly lower mean Verbal IQ (p < .05) than the visual-spatial or normal control groups . Significant differences were also fou nd for Performance IQ , F(2, 66) = 21. 98 , p < .001, with the Scheffe post hoc analysis indicating that the auditory-linguistic group had a significantly ( p < .05) higher mean Performance IQ than the other two groups and that the normal control group had a significantly higher mean Performance IQ than the visual-spatial group. The auditory-linguistic group had a significantly wider discrepancy between Verbal and Performance IQ than did the visual-spatial group , t(41) = 2. 91, p < .01 .
Piagetian Tasks None of the children in any of the three groups obtained a perfect score on all of the Piagetian tasks. A univariate analysis indicated significant group dif-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
96
The Journal of G enetic Psychology
fere nces on total test scores, F(2, 66) = 3. 12, p < .OS. A Sc heffe post hoc procedure revealed th at the auditory-lingui sti c group (M = II . 96, SD = 1. 82) had a signifi cantl y (p < .05 ) lower total test score than the normal control group (M = 13.39, SD = 1.94) . The vi sual-spati al group (M = 13.05 , SD = 2 .44) did not differ significantl y fro m either of the other two groups . The overall level of operativity signi fica ntl y decreased as the absolute di ffe rence between Verbal and Performance IQ scores increased (r = - . 2 1, p < .04). The number of children in each group who performed at either the preoperational or concrete operati onal level of cognitive development was totaled fo r each of the nine Pi agetian tasks . These numbers were then converted into percentages to compare the performance of the three groups at each level of developme nt. Results of these analyses are found in Table 2. A chi-squ are analys is was performed to determine if significant differences ex isted be tween groups in regard to the number of c hildren pass ing indi vidual tasks at the preoperational and concrete operational levels of development. Results indicated a significant diffe rence , x2 (2 , N = 69) = 7 .0 , p < .03 , on the conservation of le ngth task . Follow-up tests indicated that signifi cantl y more of- the children in the norm al control group obtained a concrete operational level of performance on thi s task than did childre n in the auditory-linguisti c group , x2 ( I , N = 43 ) = 6. 9 1, p < .0 I . Childre n in the visual-spati al group did not differ from the other two groups in number of children ex pected at the two stages of cogniti ve deve lopment.
Predictors of Academic Achievement A stepwi se regression analysis was performed on the five achi evement variabl es , usi ng Full Scale IQ , age, total test score on Pi agetian tasks, SES , sex , and race as predictor variables. In thi s analys is, 2 1 additional normal achieving subj ects, who fell within the original age and grade criteria , were included . Results are presented in Table 3. Even with a restricted range of IQs, Full Scale IQ emerged as a significant predictor of early reading and spelling skills. Predicti on o f math skills was signi fica ntl y improved by the addition of Pi ageti an measures to Full Scale IQ measures.
Discussion In contrast to earlier fi ndings (Braude- Kremberg , 1984; Brekke et al. , 1976; Chabot , 1977 ; Leonard , 1984), our res ults do not unequi vocall y support the hypothes is that childre n with learning disabilities ex hib it delays in operati ve thought . Sim il arly, there was onl y parti al support fo r Sw icegood and Crump 's
97
Williams , Morgan , & Kalthoff
TABLE 2 Number and Percentage of Children Performing at Preoperational or Concrete Operational Level on Piagetian Tasks According to Group Preoperational
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Piagetian task/group Single classification Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Class inclusion Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Single seriation Visual- spatial Auditory- linguistic Normal control Multiple seriation Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of quantity Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of weight Visual- spatial Auditory- lingui stic Normal control Conservat ion of number Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of volume Visual-spati al Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of length Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control
No .
%
Concrete No.
%
0 0 0
0 0 0
20 23 26
100 100 100
14 20 15
70 87 58
6 3 II
30 13 42
7 6 4
35 26 15
13 17 22
65 74 85
19 20 25
95 87 96
I
3
5 13 4
9 17 15
45 74 58
II II
55 26 42
13 18 12
65 78 46
7 5 14
35 22 54
10 18 16
50 78 62
10 5 10
50 22 39
13 19 18
65 83 69
7 4 8
35 17 31
14 21 15
70 91 58
6 2
30 9 42
I
6
II
98
Th e Journal of Genetic Psvchologv
TABLE 3 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis With Full Scale IQ
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
C riteri o n varia ble/predic to r Pl AT Read ing Recogniti o n Full Sca le lQ PlAT Readi ng Comprehe nsio n Full Scale lQ PlAT Math Full Sca le lQ TT W RAT-R Spell ing Full Scale lQ WR AT-R Math Full Scale IQ
R
.26 .39
.4 1 .47
.06
.23
TT
.22 .26
Age
.30
No te. N = 90. PlA T = Peabody Individ ual Achi evement Test: TT Piageti an tasks: WRAT-R = W ide Ra nge Ac hievement T est- Revised .
.04 .04 tota!1est score for
(1984) contenti on th at children with learning di sabilities do not di ffer from normal achi ev ing controls in overall level of cognitive development. Our results indicate th at children with vi sual-spatial learning disabilities did not differ signifi cantl y from normal control s in the devel opment of concrete operati onal th ought , whereas children with auditory-lingui sti c learning disabilities we re signi fica ntl y delayed in comparison with normal control s. These results affirm the need to examine the heterogeneity of the learning di sabled population being stud ied . The vari ability in performance, as well as the overlap with normal controls, indicates a hi gh leve l of diversity in learning disabled samples. The outco me of thi s study is contrary to the expectati on that children with stronger nonverbal reasonin g skill s will outperform children with weaker perceptual abilities on co ncrete operation al tasks. Two possible explanations are offered for these results . First, the difference may be related to lower .integrati on of cogniti ve skill s in the auditory-linguistic learning di sabled group. These children demonstrated a significantly wider di screpancy between verbal and nonverbal skill s, as we ll as a lower overall level of operativity, than did children with vis ual- spati al learning di sabilities . This suggests that chil dren with greater discrepancies between verbal and nonverbal skill s, regardless of di rec ti on, may be slower in acquiring concrete operational levels of thought. It al so supports the content io n that Piageti an conservati on tasks have been fo und to be good behavioral measures of interhemi spheri c integration (Kraft, Mitchell, Langui s, & Wheatl ey, 1980; Mishra, 1983 ).
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
W illi ams , Mo rgan , & Ka ltho fl
99
An alternati ve ex planati on is that verbal defi cits may be more detrimental to cog niti ve deve lopment and may present more difficulti es to the child in mak ing cogniti ve compensati ons. From a Piageti an perspective, language becomes increasingly important as the child break s away from the heavy re li ance on perception th at characteri zes the preoperati onal period. Vi sualperceptual defi cits may become less important as the child compensates through the use of language to solve problems and develop logical thought processes. In both Meltzer's (197 8) and Ni gl and Fishbein 's (1979) studies , children with learning di sabilities, who were selected because they demonstrated visual-spati al defi cits, did not show delays in concrete operational thought. The preoperational child with a vi sual-spati al defi cit may demonstrate diffic ulties during developmental stages that require heavy reli ance on perceptual processes but may later co mpensate with stronger language skill s when a symbol system is required for the facilitation of cognitive fun ctioning. In contrast, the child with an auditory- lingui stic di sability may continue to re ly on perceptual feat ures long past the stage of developmental appropriateness. Language sk ills may not be suffi cientl y developed to serve as a medi ator for problem solving. Support for thi s contenti on may be inferred fro m the fac t that Sil vius (I 977) , whose subjects were approxi mately 2 1/2 years younger than those in the present study, found both chi ldren with visualspati al disabi lities and children with auditory-lingui stic disabilities to be delayed in cogniti ve development , whereas we found that older children with visual-spatial di sabilities did not differ from normal achiev ing children in the development of concrete operational thought. However, as refl ected clearly in Klees and Lebrun 's ( 1972) study, the severity of the interfe rence with figurati ve or perceptual processes may greatl y affect the child 's ability to compensate. Severe visual-spati al deficits may prevent the child from making adequ ate compensati ons to fac ilitate log ical thought. The severity of the visualspati al defic its of the children in the present study may not have been great enough to interfere with the development of operati vit y. In addition to a signifi cant overall delay in cogniti ve development , the children in the auditory-lingui sti c group demonstrated a spec ific weakness in cogniti ve skill s. Signifi cantl y fewer children in thi s group performed at a concrete operational level on the conservation of length task than in the normal ac hiev ing group . This delay in attainment of conservation of length is a replication of the results of Sil vius ( 1977) even though a di fferent task was used to measure the same concept. This finding lends tentati ve support to the hypothes is that, for at least one subtype of learning disabilities, spec ific delays in cogniti ve development may occur. Even though traditionaliQ measures were found to be the best predictors of earl y academic achievement , we believe that the findin gs of thi s study argue fo r the inclusion of Piageti an measures because they add a unique dimension to the assess ment of earl y cogniti ve development. In th e evaluati on of
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
I 00
Th e Journal of Cenelir Psvcholog v
exceptional chil dren, traditi onal measures of intelli gence may give spuri ously hi gh estim ates of conceptual fun ctioning because of splinter skill s and scatter among subtest items (Morgan , 1986). Because a compos ite IQ represent s both figurative and operati ve functioning, a relatively low leve l of operative fu ncti oning may be masked by a much higher level of fi gurati ve fun ctioning. In thi s study, children with auditory-lingui stic di sabilities who were equ ated in measured IQ with normal achi eving children were fo und to be signi fica ntl y delayed in concrete operational thou ght . Piageti an tas ks may be more operati ve ly demanding and prov ide a better estimate of adapti ve cogniti ve fun ctioni ng (Morgan, 1986) . Children with learning di sabilities who are at di fferent levels of operati vity require differenti al treatment even though their measured IQs might be equi va lent. Ev idence indicates that cogniti ve ly immature children need more structured directions, concrete cues, and spec ific examples to follow, during cognitive self-instructi onal training, whereas cogniti ve ly more mature children can ge nerate and use more abstract , conceptual instruct ions (Copeland, 198 1). Concrete operati onal children can separate fo rm fro m content in a situation, whereas preoperational children strongly re ly on perce ptual experience rather th an conceptual inferences (Cohen & Sc hl eser, 1984). Further research with older children with learning di sabilities is needed to determine whether delays in operativity represent a maturational lag or a longstanding deficit in cogniti ve development. It would also be benefi cial to explore the meaning of large Verbal-Performance IQ differences as they relate to the development of operativity in normal achieving children as well as in children of vari ous intellectual ranges. REFERENCES Arli n, P. K. ( 198 1). Pi age ti an tas ks as predictors of readin g and math readiness in grades K- 1. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73 , 7 12-72 1. Bent on , A . (1978). Some co ncl usions about dys lex ia. In A . L. Be nt on & D . Pearl (Eds.) , Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 453-476). New York: Oxfo rd Uni versity Press. · Boder, E. ( 1973). Develo pme nt al dys lex ia: A di ag nosti c approac h based on three atypica l read ing-s pe llin g pattern s. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15. 663-687. Braine rd, C. J. ( 1978). Piaget's th eory of imelligence. Englewood C li ffs, NJ : Pre nt ice-Hall . Braude- Kre mberg , D . J. ( 1984 ). The pe rfo rmance of learning disabled child ren o n Pi agetia n tasks. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 , 2089A . Brekke , B., Wi lliams, J. , Johnso n , D . L., & Johnson , M . ( 1976) . Co nservatio n of we ight with the learnin g d isabled . Journal of Teaching and Leaming . 2 . 25 - 33 . Byrd, D . M., & G ho lso n , B . ( 1984). A cog niti ve-development al mode l of read ing. In B . Gho lson & T. L. Rose nthal (Eds.) , Applications of cognitive-developmental th eory (pp . 2 1-48). San Diego , CA: Acade mi c Press .
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
William s, Morgan, & K a ltho ff
10 1
Chabot, F. B. (1977) . A co mpari so n between learning disabled and normal second and third grade boys on four Piaget ian tas ks: Seriati on , transiti vity, equivalence, and conse rvati on of number. In J. F. Margary, M. K. Poul son, P. J. Levinson , & P. A. Tayl or (Eds.), PiageTian Th eory and The helpin g professions (pp. 100- 107). Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Cohen, R., & Schleser, R. ( I 984 ). Cognitive deve lopment and clinical interve ntions. In A. W. Meyers & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), Cog niTive behavior Therapy wiTh ch ildren (pp. 45- 68). New York: Plenum Press. Cope land , A. P. ( 198 1). The relevance of subject variables in cogniti ve se lfinstructiona l programs for impulsive children. Beha vior Therapy. 12, 520-529. Cowan , P A. ( 1978). PiageT: WiThfeeling. New York : Holt , Rinehart , & Winston . Dunn , L. M .. & Markwardt , F. C. ( 1970). Peabody Individual AchievemenT TesT manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Fincham , F. ( I 979) Conservation and cogniti ve role-taking ability in learning disabled boys. Journal of Learning DisabiliTies. 12, 25 -3 I . Formanek, R., & Gurian , A. ( I976). CharTing inTellecTUal developme/ll . Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Goldsch mi d, M. L., & Bentler, P. M. ( I 968). The dimensions and measurement of conservat ion. Child DevelopmenT. 39 , 787-802. Hollings head , A. B. ( 1975). Four facTO r index of social sTaTUs. New Have n, CT: Author. Hres ko , W. P , & Reid , D. K. ( I 98 I). Five faces of cognition: Theoretical influences on app roaches to learning disabilities. Learning Disabiliry QuarTerly, 4, 238-243. Jas tak, S., & Wilkinson , G. S. ( 1984). The Wide Range AchievemenT TesT- Revised adminisTraTion manual. Wilmington , DE: Jastak Associates. Kingma, J. , & Koops, W. ( I983). Piagetian tasks, traditional intelligence and ac hievement tests. BriTish Journal of EducaTional Psychology, 53 , 278-290. Klees , M., & Lebrun, A. ( 1972). Analysis of the figurative and operative processes of thought of forty dyslexic children . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 5, 389396. Kraft, R. H., Mitchell , 0. R , Languis , M. L. . & Wheatley, G. H. (1 980). Hemispheric asym metries during six- to eight-year-olds ' performance of Piagetian conse rvation and reading task s. Neuropsychologia. 18, 637- 643 . Leonard , E. L. ( I 984). Acquisition of Pi age tian classification concepts by learning disabled boys : A developmental lag hypothes is (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland , 1983). DisserTaTion Abstracts 1nTernational, 45, 492A . Meltzer, L. J. ( I 978). Abstract reasoning in a specific group of perceptually impaired children: Na mely, the learning disabled . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132 , 185195. Mishra , S . P. (I 983). Cognitive processes: Implications for assessing intelligence. Theorv inTo PracTice, 22 . 145- 150 . Morgan : S . B. (1986). Autism and Pi age t's theory: Are the two compatible? Journal of AuTism and DevelopmenTal Disorders, 16. 441 - 457 . Nigl, A. J., & Fishbein , H. D. ( 1979). The coordination of perspectives in learning disab led children. Research CommunicaTions in Psychology, PsychiaTry, and Behavior. 4. 3 19-331 . Pi aget, J. ( 1973). The child and realitv (A. Ros in , Trans.). New York : Penguin Books. Piage t, .1 ., & Inhelder, B. ( 1969) Th e ps\'chology of Th e child. New York : Basic Books. Piaget , J.. lnhelder, B.. & Szc minska . A. ( 1948) La geomhrie sponTanee de /'en-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
I 02
Th e Journal of Genetic Psvchologv
fant [The child 's conception of geometry]. Paris : Presses Universi taires de France. Pirozzolo, F. J. ( 198 1). Language and brain: Neuropsyc holog ical aspects of deve lopmental reading disability. School Psychology Review, 10, 350-355. Rattan, G. , & Dean , R. S. (1987) . The neuropsychology of learning disorders. In J. M. Williams & C. J. Long (Eds.) , The rehabilitation of cognitive disabilities (pp . 169-186). New York: Plenum Press . Reid , D. K. ( 1981 ). Learn ing and development from a Piagetian perspective: The exceptional chi ld . In I. E. Sigel , D. M . Brodzinsky, & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds .), New directions in Piagetian th eory and practice (pp. 339- 344) . Hill sdale , NJ: Erlbaum. Riley, N. J. ( 1984). Attai nment of Piageti an cogniti ve tas ks as related to readi ng and mathematics achievement among fourth- and fifth-grade learning disabled and nonlearning di sabled pupils . Dissertation Abstracts lntem ational . 44 , 3034A. Roberts , T. (1984). Piagetian theory and the teaching of reading. Educational Research , 26, 77- 81 . Rourke , B. P. (1983). Reading and spelling disabilities : A deve lopmental neuropsychology perspecti ve . In U. Kirk (Ed.) , Ne uropsychology of language. reading, and spelling disabilities (pp. 209-234). San Diego , CA: Academic Press. Rourke , B. P. (Ed.) (1985). Neu ropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis . New York : Gui lford Press. Saxe , G. B., & Shaheen , S . (198 1). Piagetian theory and the atypical case: An anal ys is of the developmental Gerstmann syndrome . Learning Disabilities . 14 , 13 1- 135. Silvius , J. R. (1977). A stud y of the comparative performance of learning di sabled and normal children on Piagetian tasks of conservation (Doctoral dissertation , Northwestern University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International , 38, 207 A. Swicegood , P. R., & Crump, W. D. (1984). Piaget ian cogn itive development of learning disabled and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Hum an Behavior and Learning, 1, 13-2 1. Tennessee State Department of Education. (1982) . Swdent evaluation manual. Nashvi lle , TN: Author. Trepanier, M. L. , & Liben , L. S. (1979). The operative bas is of performance on Pi agetian memory tasks: Evidence from norm al and learn ing disabled children. Developmen tal Psychology, 15 , 668-669. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual fo r the Wechsler Intelligence Sca le fo r ChildrenRevised . New York: Psychological Corporation .
Received November 19 , 1990
The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Concrete Operational Thought in Children With Learning Disabilities and Children With Normal Achievement a
a
Jane Williams , Sam B. Morgan & Roger A. Kalthoff
a
a
Department of Psychology , Memphis State University Published online: 21 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Jane Williams , Sam B. Morgan & Roger A. Kalthoff (1992) Concrete Operational Thought in Children With Learning Disabilities and Children With Normal Achievement, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 153:1, 87-102, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1992.10753704 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1992.10753704
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, / 53( I). 87- 102
Concrete Operational Thought in Children With Learning Disabilities and Children With Normal Achievement JANE WILLIAMS SAM B. MORGAN ROGER A. KALTHOFF Department of Psychology Memphis State University
ABSTRACT. This study compared Piagetian cognitive development in normal ach iev ing ch il dren and two groups of children with learning disabilities designated as e ither auditory-linguistic or visual-spatial o n the basis of Verbal-Performance IQ d ifferences on th e Wechsler Inte lligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; 1974). The two groups with learning disabilities were matched with normal achieving con trol s on intelligence , soc ioeco nomic status , sex , race, and age . Piagetian tasks measuring conservation , seriation , and classification were administered to each c hild to determine level of operative thought. The auditory-linguistic group scored significantl y below normal contro ls in operativity, and signifi cantly fewer were at a co ncrete operational level on a conservati on of length task than were normal achieving c hildren . T he visua l-spatial gro up did not differ significantl y from normal controls . These res ults suggest that auditory-linguistic disabilities may be more detrimental than vis ual-spatial disabilities to development of operativit y.
THE CONSTRU CTIVIST PERSPECTIVE of Jean Piaget has been one of the most frequently cited theories of cognitive development in children. Piaget ( 1973 ; Piaget & Inhe lder, 1969) postulated that thought processes are reorganized and transformed during four universal and invariant stages of cogni ti ve development. Piaget 's third stage , the concrete operational period , is felt to be espec iall y important because of its relationship to the beginning of formal ed ucation. During this stage, the child relies less heavily on the figurative aspects of thought , with perceptual features becoming less salient; he or she engages more and more in operative thought , which involves concept ualization and analyti ca l thinking. Three signific ant cogniti ve operations 87
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
88
Th e Journal of Genetic Psycholog y
that emerge during this stage are conservation , classification , and seriation . The child also begins to focus on several aspects of a situation simultaneously and is capable of reversibility of thought. Piaget's theory of cognitive development is held to be applicable to all populations of children . Evidence indicates that children with exceptionalities , such as mental retardation , pass through the same cognitive stages in precisely the same order as normal children , but at a slower rate and with a lower ceiling reached (Morgan, 1986). However, exceptions to this similarsequence hypothesis have been proposed for other disorders , such as autism and childhood psychosis (Cowan , 1978 ; Morgan , 1986; Reid , 1981 ). Morgan ( 1986) postulated that autism may reflect arrested development in operative functioning while figurative functioning continues to progress . This early arrest interferes with subsequent development of higher level conceptual , symbolic , and social skills. Controversy exists concerning the role of cognitive deve lopment in learning disabilities , which involve a discrepancy between measured abilities and actual academic achievement. Some theorists (e .g . , Hresko & Reid , 1981) have advocated a similar-sequence hypothesis of cognitive development in children with learning disabilities . These theori sts contend that the difficulties these children ex perience result from a maturational lag that is reflected in an overall delay in cognitive development. In contrast to individual s who are mentally retarded, the delays of children with learning disabilities tend to be minimal , and the children may eventually achieve normal developmental progress (Hresko & Reid , 1981) . Other theorists have not found evidence to support a developmental lag position , but rather have found longstanding performance differentials between childre n with learning disabilities and normal achieving children . Leonard ·( 1984) found performance on classification tasks in favor of normal achieving children through the age of 15 years , and Braude-Kremberg (1984) fo und performance deficits on Piagetian tasks of conservation, classification , and seriation for children with learning disabilities across three ages. Brekke , Williams, Johnson, and Johnson (1976) likewise found that children with learning disabilities were delayed on three measures of conservation of weight when compared with normal achieving controls. However, none of the studies cited thus far considered the possible heterogeneity of the learning disabled samples , and few controlled for intelligence.
This research was partially supported by a Center of Excellence Gram f rom rhe state of Tennessee to the D epartment of Psychology, Memphis State University. We thank Marilyn Johnson for her help in collecting data for this project. Address correspondence to Jane Williams , who is now ar the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Department of Pediatrics . 800 Marshall , Little Rock, AR 72202.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Williams, Morgan, & Kalthoff
89
In a stud y in which children with learning di sabilities and children with normal achievement were matched on age, sex, socioeconomic status (SES) , and inte lligence, Chabot ( 1977) found that students with learning disabilities performed significantly poorer on Piagetian tasks involving transitivity and eq uivalence. They demonstrated severe performance defic its on seriation and conservation of number tasks. Chabot reported that these children had substantial difficulty in verbally justifying their responses. Klees and Lebrun ( 1972) studied childre n with reading disabilities and concluded that these children displayed a general overall delay in operative thought , which they attributed to spec ific di sturbances in figurative function s of thinking . Instead of cons idering the verbal aspects of questions , the children with reading di sabilities were dominated by their perceptive impressions. Klees and Lebrun proposed that thi s reliance on perception hindered the transformation to a more operative stage of development. However, there was wide variability in performance by these children, and those who did not demonstrate severe problems with figurative thought did not display delays in operativity. In contrast to these findings of delayed cognitive development , Swicegood and Crump (1984) found no significant differences between the performance of children with learning disabilities and the performance of normal ac hieving students on 10 Piagetian tasks at three different age levels. Other theorists (Me ltzer, 1978 ; Trepanier & Liben , 1979) have contended that learning disabilities result from specific deficits that affect isolated areas of cognition. Therefore , children with learning disabilities do not demonstrate a delay of overall acquisition of operativity but rather experience delays or deficits in specific cognitive skills . Meltzer ( 1978) compared normal control s with children who had learning disabilities in the form of perceptual deficits . On task s involving visual perception , children with learning disabiliti es performed significantly poorer than the normal children ; however, performance on Piagetian tasks was equivalent for both groups. Meltzer concl uded that the children with learning disabilities did not demonstrate an impairment affecting the acquisition of logical reasoning but showed an information processing deficit that interfered with specific cognitive skills, such as the reading of symbols. Nigl and Fishbein ( 1979) simi larly studied children who were selected only if they demonstrated specific perceptual-motor or spati al problems. The children's performance on the Piagetian coordination of perspectives tasks was not significantly different from that of normal children. Trepanier and Liben ( 1979) compared children with learning disabilities and normal controls who had all reached the concrete operational stage of thought. The children with learning disabilities were selected only if they demonstrated deficits in visual memory. When given standard Piagetian memory tasks that required operative thought , the children with learning di sabilities performed at an equivalent level to normal control s. However, when arbitrary visual memory tasks were presented that did not require concrete
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
90
Th e
Jo t~ m
ol of Genetic Psrchologv
operation s, children with learnin g di sabilities performed signific antly below norm al ac hiev in g children. Th ese studies suggest normal deve lopment of operati ve thought in children with learning disabilities. but with deficit s in specifi c cognit ive sk ills, particularly the process ing of vi sual-spati al informati on. These research results. concerning both overall level of cog nitive development as we ll as specifi c defic its, appear to be highl y conflictual. Failure to consider the heterogene it y of the learning di sabled population may have been a signifi cant co ntributor to the inconsistent outcomes . Some ev idence supports the view th at most children with learning di sabilities can be classified into clinically meanin gful subt ypes on the bas is of their neuropsyc hological strengt hs and weaknesses on a variety of measures (Rourke , 1985 ). The two major subtypes that have emerged from the literature are referred to variously as auditory- Iin gui stic versus visual-spatial (Pirozzo lo , 1981 ), dy sphonetic vers us dyseideti c (Soder, 1973), or verbal-linguistic versus visual- spatial (Rourke. 1983 ) One subt ype is predominantl y impaired in verbal areas, whereas the other is predomin antly impaired in nonverbal areas. We fou nd onl y one stud y (Silvius , 1977) that investi gated the performance of children with subtypes of learning disabilities on Piagetian tas ks. Groups of ch ildren wi th verbal learning di sabilities, nonverbal learning di sabil ities , and no lea rnin g disabilities were compared in their performance on nine conservati on tasks. Both groups of children with learning di sabilities scored significantly below children with no learning disabilities on overall leve l of cogniti ve development. The learning di sabled groups were distingui shed from eac h other by the significantly lower performance of children with verbal learnin g di sabilities on a conservation of length task and the signi fican tl y lower performance of children with nonverbal learnin g di sabilities on a co nservation of area tas k. A finding that appeared to refl ect the importance of integration in cog nitive functions was that as the abso lute discrepancy between verbal and performance skill s increased , the leve l of conservation signifi cantl y dec reased .
Relationship Between Cognitive Development and Academic Achievement
Researchers have proposed th at attainment of the concrete operational stage of cogniti ve development may be necessary for achievement in vari ous aspec ts of readin g and math skill s (A rlin , 198 1). Moderate co rrelat ions have been found betwee n perform ance on classification, seri ati on, and co nservation tasks and academic ac hieve ment (Goldschmid & Bentl er, 1968 ) Riley ( 1984) found a sig nifi cant pos iti ve relationship between cogniti ve ability leve l, as meas ured by Piagetian tas ks, and readin g and math ac hi eve ment ;
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Williams, Morgan , & K althoff
91
however, math achievement accounted for a far greater proportio n of the varIance. Saxe and Shahee n ( 198 1) found that children dela yed in advancement to a concrete operational leve l were inhibited in acquisition of numerical skills but that reading skills were not directly dependent o n stage transition . Other researc h has demon strated a positive correlation between reading performance and concrete operational thought (Roberts, 1984). On the basis of research findings thu s far, it is not poss ible to conclude defi nitel y that concrete operational thoug ht is a prerequisite for reading. Because preoperational children have bee n shown to be capable of learning to read words , operativity may be a sufficient but not necessary condition for reading . The beginning reader appears to rel y heavil y on visual and perceptual cues to recognize words. This reliance on figurative aspects allows the preoperational child to decode and rotely read word s (Byrd & Ghol son , 1984; Roberts , 1984) . For the co mprehension of textual material, however, conceptual knowledge based on concrete operations may be needed . Byrd and Gholson (1984) postulated that during the concrete stage of development there is an integration of information from both perceptual and conceptual sources . Concrete thought allows the child to combine the fig urative and operative aspects involved in reading. The purpose of thi s stud y was to explore the similarities and differences in cognitive development, as assessed through Piagetian tasks, of children with learning disabilities and c hildren with normal achievement. These tasks were chosen because they have been found to be valid measures of overall cog nitive development and to contribute significantly to the prediction of early math and reading skill s. In contrast to previous research , the heterogene ity of the learning disabled population was addressed through the use of two subtypes because it was felt that this dimension might clarify many of the conflicting findings concerning cognitive development in children with learning disabilities. The two subtypes , referred to as auditory-linguistic and visual-spatial , were defined with reference to the children's patterns of performance on the Wec hsler Intelligence Sca le for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974). The WISC-R is viewed as an essential measure for identifying pattern s of strength s and weaknesses in children with learning disabilities , and it contributes heav ily to the diagnosis of learning disabilities as well as to the class ification of subtypes (Rattan & Dean, 1987).
Method Subjects Subjects were 69 children e nro lled in the first through third grades in a metropo litan schoo l system . The c hildre n ranged in age from 7 to 9 years, and
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
92
Th e Jo urnal of Genetic Ps ychology
the sex rati o was approx imately 4 boys to I girl , which is representati ve of the occ urrence of learnin g disabilities as reported in the literature (Benton, 1978) Rac ial compos ition was 36% Black and 64% White. Subjects were di vided into three groups consisting of two groups of chil dre n with learning disabilities and one group of children with norm al ac hievement. Children in the learning disabled groups were currentl y pl aced in special educati on classes and had met the Tennessee State Department of Ed ucati on ( 1982) stand ards for learning di sability. These criteria included (a) significant discrepancy (one standard deviation) between ac hievement in one or more academi c areas and general intellectual functi oning, with achievement being lower; (b) normal general intelli gence; and (c) no indication of sensory and motor defects, of environmental, cultural, or economic di sadvantage, of emoti onal di sturbance, or of insuffi cient teachin g that could account fo r the learning defi cit. All of the students with learning di sabilities in thi s study met these criteri a except for 4 students whose di screpancy was between academic performance and either the WIS C-R Verbal or Performance IQ rather than the Full Scale IQ . Table I summari zes the subject characteristics of the three groups. The visual-spatial learn ing di sabled group (n = 20) consisted of chil dren who displayed a signi ficant WISC-R Verbal > Performance IQ di sc repancy (M = 18. I). The audi tory-linguistic learning di sabled group (n = 23) consisted of children who di splayed a signifi cant Verbal < Performance IQ discrepancy (M = 23.6 1). The normal control group (n = 26) consisted of children who demonstrated normal achievement , were not eli gible for any type of spec ial education services, and did not di splay a significant discrepancy between Verbal and Performance IQs. There were an additional 21 subjects who met the study criteri a for normal ac hiev ing children but demonstrated signi fica nt discrepancies between Verbal and Performance IQs. They were included onl y in the analyses for predictors of earl y academic achievement .
Procedure
Parents were contacted and asked to complete a questionn aire concerning demographic informati on, which was used to determine SES (Hollingshead, 1975) . After parental perm iss ion was received, eac h child was indi vidu all y adm inistered Piagetian tasks and intell ectuall y assessed with the WISC-R. Ac hievement scores were obtained by indi vidual adm inistration of the Reading Recog ni tion, Reading Co mprehension, and Math scales of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Pl AT; Dunn & Markwardt , 1970), as well as the math and spelling secti ons of the Wide Range Achievement Test- Rev ised (WRAT-R; Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984).
Williams , Morgan. & Kalthoff
93
TABLE I Subject Characteristics of the Three Groups
Characteristic
Visual-spatial (n = 20)
Group Auditorylingui sitic (n = 23)
Normal control s (n = 26)
100.85 6.95 87- 109
101.00 5.61 9 1- 111
98 .50 7.55 87- 111
35.85 12.8 1 16--63
35.52 11.24 13-53
37.00 9.44 20-57
98 .2 12.33 80-126
97 .04 12.55 80-124
102.20 9 .1 6 86-- 123
107.10 11 .02 9 1- 133
86 .52 12 .27 70-112
101 .69 8.82 84- 120
89.00 11.52 7 1- 114
110 .00 12. 17 93-132
102 .73 8.44 90-126
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Age (in months) M
SD Range SES M
SD Range Full Scale IQ M
SD Range Verbal IQ M
SD Range Performance IQ M
SD Range Note. SES
= soc ioeco nomic
status .
Piagetian Tasks Nine Piagetian tasks were chosen to assess the children's level s of cognitive development. A standardized format was followed for administration of each task. The following tasks assessed the area of conservation.
Number (Piaget, lnhelder, & Szeminska, 1948). Two parallel rows of six plastic chips were presented , with the rows appearing equal in length . One row of chips was spread further apart , and the child was asked whether the rows were now eq ual and why. One row was then constricted, and the questions were repeated. The last transformation involved making a circle of one of the rows and agai n asking equivalence questions. Quantity (Brainerd, 1978) . Two identical glasses containing equal amounts of water were presented. The contents of one glass were poured into a tall ,
94
The l o u mo l of Genelic Psvcho/ogv
thin glass , and the child was asked whether or not the two glasses contained eq ual amounts of water and why.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Lengrh (P iager era/. , 1948). Two equivalent strips of lightweight cardboard were presented in a parallel position so that their end points corresponded. One strip was folded into a W shape , and the child was asked whether the strips were the same length and why. Weigh! (Formanek & Gurian, 1976). Two identical balls of clay were placed on a set of balance scales, which demonstrated an equality of weight. The balls were removed from the scales, and one ball was formed into a sausage shape. The child was asked whether the two pieces of clay weighed the same amount and why. Volum e (Piager era/. , 1948 ). Two identical glasses containing equal amounts of water were presented with two identical balls of clay placed in front of the glasses . One ball was dropped into one of the glasses , and the second ball was flattened into a p_ancake shape. The child was asked whether the water in the second glass would rise to the level in the first glass if the pancake-shaped clay was dropped into it and why. The following tasks assessed the area of seriation. Single seriarion (Fo rmanek & Gurian , 1976) . Eight rods, ranging in length from 4 to 7 lf2 in., were presented in an arbitrary sequence . The child was asked to arrange the rods in the correct order. Mulriple seriarion (Formanek & Gurian , 1976) . Sixteen pictures of cars, which were identical except for differences in size and color intensity, were presented to the child . The child was asked to arrange the cars in the correct order and then to verbally indicate the two dimensions used. The following tasks assessed the area of classification. Single classificarion (Brainerd, 1978). An array consisting of 6 toy animals and 6 toy vehicles was presented. The child was asked to sort the 12 objects into two mutually exclusive categories and to explain why the objects were sorted in that particular pattern. Class inclusion (Brainerd, 1978) . A collection of 10 plastic farm animals consi sting of 8 horses and 2 cows was presented to the child. After the child affi rmed that all the plastic objects were animals, he or she was asked whether there were more horses or animals and why.
Williams, Morgan , & Kalthoff
95
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Scoring and Reliability On each of the Piagetian tasks , the child was evaluated on the correctness of response as well as the appropriateness of his or her explanation for the answer given (Arlin, 1981 ; Fincham , 1979; Goldschmid & Bentler, 1968; Kingma & Koops , 1983 ; Swicegood & Crump, 1984) . A bipartite scoring system was used in which the child received I point if an incorrect response was made or if a correct response was made but an incorrect explanation was given. The child received 2 points if a correct response was made along with an appropriate explanation. A total of 18 points was possible . Reliability of the Piagetian tasks was established by evaluating 16 normal achiev ing chi ldren who fell within the age range of children included in the stud y. These children were retested after a 2-week interval, and test-retest reliab ility for total scores was . 92 (p < .00 I) . In no case did any child change a correct response between the initial and retesting phases . Each protocol for all administrations (N = 140) of the Piagetian tasks was scored twice. The second scoring was completed by the examiner who did not administer the tasks, and scorer agreement was 98 % .
Results Demographic Variables A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), performed for the three groups across the characteristics presented in Table I , indicated significant differences(WilksA. = .079) , F(I2, 106) = 22.54 ,p< .001. Nodifferences between groups were found on variables of age , SES, or Full Scale IQ, but, as ex pected , significant differences were found for Verbal IQ , F(2 , 66) = 21.27 , p < .001. A Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed that the auditorylinguistic group had a significantly lower mean Verbal IQ (p < .05) than the visual-spatial or normal control groups . Significant differences were also fou nd for Performance IQ , F(2, 66) = 21. 98 , p < .001, with the Scheffe post hoc analysis indicating that the auditory-linguistic group had a significantly ( p < .05) higher mean Performance IQ than the other two groups and that the normal control group had a significantly higher mean Performance IQ than the visual-spatial group. The auditory-linguistic group had a significantly wider discrepancy between Verbal and Performance IQ than did the visual-spatial group , t(41) = 2. 91, p < .01 .
Piagetian Tasks None of the children in any of the three groups obtained a perfect score on all of the Piagetian tasks. A univariate analysis indicated significant group dif-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
96
The Journal of G enetic Psychology
fere nces on total test scores, F(2, 66) = 3. 12, p < .OS. A Sc heffe post hoc procedure revealed th at the auditory-lingui sti c group (M = II . 96, SD = 1. 82) had a signifi cantl y (p < .05 ) lower total test score than the normal control group (M = 13.39, SD = 1.94) . The vi sual-spati al group (M = 13.05 , SD = 2 .44) did not differ significantl y fro m either of the other two groups . The overall level of operativity signi fica ntl y decreased as the absolute di ffe rence between Verbal and Performance IQ scores increased (r = - . 2 1, p < .04). The number of children in each group who performed at either the preoperational or concrete operati onal level of cognitive development was totaled fo r each of the nine Pi agetian tasks . These numbers were then converted into percentages to compare the performance of the three groups at each level of developme nt. Results of these analyses are found in Table 2. A chi-squ are analys is was performed to determine if significant differences ex isted be tween groups in regard to the number of c hildren pass ing indi vidual tasks at the preoperational and concrete operational levels of development. Results indicated a significant diffe rence , x2 (2 , N = 69) = 7 .0 , p < .03 , on the conservation of le ngth task . Follow-up tests indicated that signifi cantl y more of- the children in the norm al control group obtained a concrete operational level of performance on thi s task than did childre n in the auditory-linguisti c group , x2 ( I , N = 43 ) = 6. 9 1, p < .0 I . Childre n in the visual-spati al group did not differ from the other two groups in number of children ex pected at the two stages of cogniti ve deve lopment.
Predictors of Academic Achievement A stepwi se regression analysis was performed on the five achi evement variabl es , usi ng Full Scale IQ , age, total test score on Pi agetian tasks, SES , sex , and race as predictor variables. In thi s analys is, 2 1 additional normal achieving subj ects, who fell within the original age and grade criteria , were included . Results are presented in Table 3. Even with a restricted range of IQs, Full Scale IQ emerged as a significant predictor of early reading and spelling skills. Predicti on o f math skills was signi fica ntl y improved by the addition of Pi ageti an measures to Full Scale IQ measures.
Discussion In contrast to earlier fi ndings (Braude- Kremberg , 1984; Brekke et al. , 1976; Chabot , 1977 ; Leonard , 1984), our res ults do not unequi vocall y support the hypothes is that childre n with learning disabilities ex hib it delays in operati ve thought . Sim il arly, there was onl y parti al support fo r Sw icegood and Crump 's
97
Williams , Morgan , & Kalthoff
TABLE 2 Number and Percentage of Children Performing at Preoperational or Concrete Operational Level on Piagetian Tasks According to Group Preoperational
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
Piagetian task/group Single classification Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Class inclusion Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Single seriation Visual- spatial Auditory- linguistic Normal control Multiple seriation Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of quantity Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of weight Visual- spatial Auditory- lingui stic Normal control Conservat ion of number Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of volume Visual-spati al Auditory-linguistic Normal control Conservation of length Visual-spatial Auditory-linguistic Normal control
No .
%
Concrete No.
%
0 0 0
0 0 0
20 23 26
100 100 100
14 20 15
70 87 58
6 3 II
30 13 42
7 6 4
35 26 15
13 17 22
65 74 85
19 20 25
95 87 96
I
3
5 13 4
9 17 15
45 74 58
II II
55 26 42
13 18 12
65 78 46
7 5 14
35 22 54
10 18 16
50 78 62
10 5 10
50 22 39
13 19 18
65 83 69
7 4 8
35 17 31
14 21 15
70 91 58
6 2
30 9 42
I
6
II
98
Th e Journal of Genetic Psvchologv
TABLE 3 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis With Full Scale IQ
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
C riteri o n varia ble/predic to r Pl AT Read ing Recogniti o n Full Sca le lQ PlAT Readi ng Comprehe nsio n Full Scale lQ PlAT Math Full Sca le lQ TT W RAT-R Spell ing Full Scale lQ WR AT-R Math Full Scale IQ
R
.26 .39
.4 1 .47
.06
.23
TT
.22 .26
Age
.30
No te. N = 90. PlA T = Peabody Individ ual Achi evement Test: TT Piageti an tasks: WRAT-R = W ide Ra nge Ac hievement T est- Revised .
.04 .04 tota!1est score for
(1984) contenti on th at children with learning di sabilities do not di ffer from normal achi ev ing controls in overall level of cognitive development. Our results indicate th at children with vi sual-spatial learning disabilities did not differ signifi cantl y from normal control s in the devel opment of concrete operati onal th ought , whereas children with auditory-lingui sti c learning disabilities we re signi fica ntl y delayed in comparison with normal control s. These results affirm the need to examine the heterogeneity of the learning di sabled population being stud ied . The vari ability in performance, as well as the overlap with normal controls, indicates a hi gh leve l of diversity in learning disabled samples. The outco me of thi s study is contrary to the expectati on that children with stronger nonverbal reasonin g skill s will outperform children with weaker perceptual abilities on co ncrete operation al tasks. Two possible explanations are offered for these results . First, the difference may be related to lower .integrati on of cogniti ve skill s in the auditory-linguistic learning di sabled group. These children demonstrated a significantly wider di screpancy between verbal and nonverbal skill s, as we ll as a lower overall level of operativity, than did children with vis ual- spati al learning di sabilities . This suggests that chil dren with greater discrepancies between verbal and nonverbal skill s, regardless of di rec ti on, may be slower in acquiring concrete operational levels of thought. It al so supports the content io n that Piageti an conservati on tasks have been fo und to be good behavioral measures of interhemi spheri c integration (Kraft, Mitchell, Langui s, & Wheatl ey, 1980; Mishra, 1983 ).
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
W illi ams , Mo rgan , & Ka ltho fl
99
An alternati ve ex planati on is that verbal defi cits may be more detrimental to cog niti ve deve lopment and may present more difficulti es to the child in mak ing cogniti ve compensati ons. From a Piageti an perspective, language becomes increasingly important as the child break s away from the heavy re li ance on perception th at characteri zes the preoperati onal period. Vi sualperceptual defi cits may become less important as the child compensates through the use of language to solve problems and develop logical thought processes. In both Meltzer's (197 8) and Ni gl and Fishbein 's (1979) studies , children with learning di sabilities, who were selected because they demonstrated visual-spati al defi cits, did not show delays in concrete operational thought. The preoperational child with a vi sual-spati al defi cit may demonstrate diffic ulties during developmental stages that require heavy reli ance on perceptual processes but may later co mpensate with stronger language skill s when a symbol system is required for the facilitation of cognitive fun ctioning. In contrast, the child with an auditory- lingui stic di sability may continue to re ly on perceptual feat ures long past the stage of developmental appropriateness. Language sk ills may not be suffi cientl y developed to serve as a medi ator for problem solving. Support for thi s contenti on may be inferred fro m the fac t that Sil vius (I 977) , whose subjects were approxi mately 2 1/2 years younger than those in the present study, found both chi ldren with visualspati al disabi lities and children with auditory-lingui stic disabilities to be delayed in cogniti ve development , whereas we found that older children with visual-spatial di sabilities did not differ from normal achiev ing children in the development of concrete operational thought. However, as refl ected clearly in Klees and Lebrun 's ( 1972) study, the severity of the interfe rence with figurati ve or perceptual processes may greatl y affect the child 's ability to compensate. Severe visual-spati al deficits may prevent the child from making adequ ate compensati ons to fac ilitate log ical thought. The severity of the visualspati al defic its of the children in the present study may not have been great enough to interfere with the development of operati vit y. In addition to a signifi cant overall delay in cogniti ve development , the children in the auditory-lingui sti c group demonstrated a spec ific weakness in cogniti ve skill s. Signifi cantl y fewer children in thi s group performed at a concrete operational level on the conservation of length task than in the normal ac hiev ing group . This delay in attainment of conservation of length is a replication of the results of Sil vius ( 1977) even though a di fferent task was used to measure the same concept. This finding lends tentati ve support to the hypothes is that, for at least one subtype of learning disabilities, spec ific delays in cogniti ve development may occur. Even though traditionaliQ measures were found to be the best predictors of earl y academic achievement , we believe that the findin gs of thi s study argue fo r the inclusion of Piageti an measures because they add a unique dimension to the assess ment of earl y cogniti ve development. In th e evaluati on of
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
I 00
Th e Journal of Cenelir Psvcholog v
exceptional chil dren, traditi onal measures of intelli gence may give spuri ously hi gh estim ates of conceptual fun ctioning because of splinter skill s and scatter among subtest items (Morgan , 1986). Because a compos ite IQ represent s both figurative and operati ve functioning, a relatively low leve l of operative fu ncti oning may be masked by a much higher level of fi gurati ve fun ctioning. In thi s study, children with auditory-lingui stic di sabilities who were equ ated in measured IQ with normal achi eving children were fo und to be signi fica ntl y delayed in concrete operational thou ght . Piageti an tas ks may be more operati ve ly demanding and prov ide a better estimate of adapti ve cogniti ve fun ctioni ng (Morgan, 1986) . Children with learning di sabilities who are at di fferent levels of operati vity require differenti al treatment even though their measured IQs might be equi va lent. Ev idence indicates that cogniti ve ly immature children need more structured directions, concrete cues, and spec ific examples to follow, during cognitive self-instructi onal training, whereas cogniti ve ly more mature children can ge nerate and use more abstract , conceptual instruct ions (Copeland, 198 1). Concrete operati onal children can separate fo rm fro m content in a situation, whereas preoperational children strongly re ly on perce ptual experience rather th an conceptual inferences (Cohen & Sc hl eser, 1984). Further research with older children with learning di sabilities is needed to determine whether delays in operativity represent a maturational lag or a longstanding deficit in cogniti ve development. It would also be benefi cial to explore the meaning of large Verbal-Performance IQ differences as they relate to the development of operativity in normal achieving children as well as in children of vari ous intellectual ranges. REFERENCES Arli n, P. K. ( 198 1). Pi age ti an tas ks as predictors of readin g and math readiness in grades K- 1. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73 , 7 12-72 1. Bent on , A . (1978). Some co ncl usions about dys lex ia. In A . L. Be nt on & D . Pearl (Eds.) , Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 453-476). New York: Oxfo rd Uni versity Press. · Boder, E. ( 1973). Develo pme nt al dys lex ia: A di ag nosti c approac h based on three atypica l read ing-s pe llin g pattern s. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15. 663-687. Braine rd, C. J. ( 1978). Piaget's th eory of imelligence. Englewood C li ffs, NJ : Pre nt ice-Hall . Braude- Kre mberg , D . J. ( 1984 ). The pe rfo rmance of learning disabled child ren o n Pi agetia n tasks. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 , 2089A . Brekke , B., Wi lliams, J. , Johnso n , D . L., & Johnson , M . ( 1976) . Co nservatio n of we ight with the learnin g d isabled . Journal of Teaching and Leaming . 2 . 25 - 33 . Byrd, D . M., & G ho lso n , B . ( 1984). A cog niti ve-development al mode l of read ing. In B . Gho lson & T. L. Rose nthal (Eds.) , Applications of cognitive-developmental th eory (pp . 2 1-48). San Diego , CA: Acade mi c Press .
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
William s, Morgan, & K a ltho ff
10 1
Chabot, F. B. (1977) . A co mpari so n between learning disabled and normal second and third grade boys on four Piaget ian tas ks: Seriati on , transiti vity, equivalence, and conse rvati on of number. In J. F. Margary, M. K. Poul son, P. J. Levinson , & P. A. Tayl or (Eds.), PiageTian Th eory and The helpin g professions (pp. 100- 107). Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Cohen, R., & Schleser, R. ( I 984 ). Cognitive deve lopment and clinical interve ntions. In A. W. Meyers & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), Cog niTive behavior Therapy wiTh ch ildren (pp. 45- 68). New York: Plenum Press. Cope land , A. P. ( 198 1). The relevance of subject variables in cogniti ve se lfinstructiona l programs for impulsive children. Beha vior Therapy. 12, 520-529. Cowan , P A. ( 1978). PiageT: WiThfeeling. New York : Holt , Rinehart , & Winston . Dunn , L. M .. & Markwardt , F. C. ( 1970). Peabody Individual AchievemenT TesT manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Fincham , F. ( I 979) Conservation and cogniti ve role-taking ability in learning disabled boys. Journal of Learning DisabiliTies. 12, 25 -3 I . Formanek, R., & Gurian , A. ( I976). CharTing inTellecTUal developme/ll . Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Goldsch mi d, M. L., & Bentler, P. M. ( I 968). The dimensions and measurement of conservat ion. Child DevelopmenT. 39 , 787-802. Hollings head , A. B. ( 1975). Four facTO r index of social sTaTUs. New Have n, CT: Author. Hres ko , W. P , & Reid , D. K. ( I 98 I). Five faces of cognition: Theoretical influences on app roaches to learning disabilities. Learning Disabiliry QuarTerly, 4, 238-243. Jas tak, S., & Wilkinson , G. S. ( 1984). The Wide Range AchievemenT TesT- Revised adminisTraTion manual. Wilmington , DE: Jastak Associates. Kingma, J. , & Koops, W. ( I983). Piagetian tasks, traditional intelligence and ac hievement tests. BriTish Journal of EducaTional Psychology, 53 , 278-290. Klees , M., & Lebrun, A. ( 1972). Analysis of the figurative and operative processes of thought of forty dyslexic children . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 5, 389396. Kraft, R. H., Mitchell , 0. R , Languis , M. L. . & Wheatley, G. H. (1 980). Hemispheric asym metries during six- to eight-year-olds ' performance of Piagetian conse rvation and reading task s. Neuropsychologia. 18, 637- 643 . Leonard , E. L. ( I 984). Acquisition of Pi age tian classification concepts by learning disabled boys : A developmental lag hypothes is (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland , 1983). DisserTaTion Abstracts 1nTernational, 45, 492A . Meltzer, L. J. ( I 978). Abstract reasoning in a specific group of perceptually impaired children: Na mely, the learning disabled . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132 , 185195. Mishra , S . P. (I 983). Cognitive processes: Implications for assessing intelligence. Theorv inTo PracTice, 22 . 145- 150 . Morgan : S . B. (1986). Autism and Pi age t's theory: Are the two compatible? Journal of AuTism and DevelopmenTal Disorders, 16. 441 - 457 . Nigl, A. J., & Fishbein , H. D. ( 1979). The coordination of perspectives in learning disab led children. Research CommunicaTions in Psychology, PsychiaTry, and Behavior. 4. 3 19-331 . Pi aget, J. ( 1973). The child and realitv (A. Ros in , Trans.). New York : Penguin Books. Piage t, .1 ., & Inhelder, B. ( 1969) Th e ps\'chology of Th e child. New York : Basic Books. Piaget , J.. lnhelder, B.. & Szc minska . A. ( 1948) La geomhrie sponTanee de /'en-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 04:18 09 February 2015
I 02
Th e Journal of Genetic Psvchologv
fant [The child 's conception of geometry]. Paris : Presses Universi taires de France. Pirozzolo, F. J. ( 198 1). Language and brain: Neuropsyc holog ical aspects of deve lopmental reading disability. School Psychology Review, 10, 350-355. Rattan, G. , & Dean , R. S. (1987) . The neuropsychology of learning disorders. In J. M. Williams & C. J. Long (Eds.) , The rehabilitation of cognitive disabilities (pp . 169-186). New York: Plenum Press . Reid , D. K. ( 1981 ). Learn ing and development from a Piagetian perspective: The exceptional chi ld . In I. E. Sigel , D. M . Brodzinsky, & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds .), New directions in Piagetian th eory and practice (pp. 339- 344) . Hill sdale , NJ: Erlbaum. Riley, N. J. ( 1984). Attai nment of Piageti an cogniti ve tas ks as related to readi ng and mathematics achievement among fourth- and fifth-grade learning disabled and nonlearning di sabled pupils . Dissertation Abstracts lntem ational . 44 , 3034A. Roberts , T. (1984). Piagetian theory and the teaching of reading. Educational Research , 26, 77- 81 . Rourke , B. P. (1983). Reading and spelling disabilities : A deve lopmental neuropsychology perspecti ve . In U. Kirk (Ed.) , Ne uropsychology of language. reading, and spelling disabilities (pp. 209-234). San Diego , CA: Academic Press. Rourke , B. P. (Ed.) (1985). Neu ropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis . New York : Gui lford Press. Saxe , G. B., & Shaheen , S . (198 1). Piagetian theory and the atypical case: An anal ys is of the developmental Gerstmann syndrome . Learning Disabilities . 14 , 13 1- 135. Silvius , J. R. (1977). A stud y of the comparative performance of learning di sabled and normal children on Piagetian tasks of conservation (Doctoral dissertation , Northwestern University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International , 38, 207 A. Swicegood , P. R., & Crump, W. D. (1984). Piaget ian cogn itive development of learning disabled and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Hum an Behavior and Learning, 1, 13-2 1. Tennessee State Department of Education. (1982) . Swdent evaluation manual. Nashvi lle , TN: Author. Trepanier, M. L. , & Liben , L. S. (1979). The operative bas is of performance on Pi agetian memory tasks: Evidence from norm al and learn ing disabled children. Developmen tal Psychology, 15 , 668-669. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual fo r the Wechsler Intelligence Sca le fo r ChildrenRevised . New York: Psychological Corporation .
Received November 19 , 1990
