Dogmatic insularity in learning disabilities classification and the critical need for a philosophical analysis

International Journal of Special Education

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 3-10

  Dombrowski, Stefan C ^a   Ambrose, Don ^a   Clinton, Amanda ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947699794     PISSN: 08273383     EISSN: 08273383     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 461-502.
2. Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14, 257-267.
3. Ambrose, D. (1998a). Comprehensiveness of conceptual foundations for gifted education: A worldview analysis. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 452-470.
4. Ambrose, D. (1998b). A model for clarification and expansion of conceptual foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 77-86.
5. Ambrose, D. (2000). World-view entrapment: Moral-ethical implications for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 159-186.
6. Ambrose, D. (2003). Theoretic scope, dynamic tensions, and dialectical processes: A model for discovery of creative intelligence. In D. Ambrose, L. M. Cohen & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Creative Intelligence: Toward Theoretic Integration, (pp. 325-345). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
7. American Academy of School Psychology. (2004). Recommendation on Comprehensive Evaluation for Learning Disabilities. Communique, 32(7), 12.
8. Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9. Bagley, W. C. (1941). The case for essentialism in education. National Education Association Journal, 30(7), 202-220.
10. Bateson, G. (1980). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam.
11. Boyd, R. (1993). Metaphor and theory change: What is "metaphor" a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 481-532). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Changeux, J. P. (1985). Neuronal man. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Changeux, J. P., & Ricoeur, P. (2000). What makes us think? (M. B. DeBevoise, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. Churchland, P. M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Churchland, P. M. (1995). Neural networks and common sense. In P. Baumgartner & S. Payr (Eds.), Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists (pp. 33-46). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17. Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Churchland, P. S., & Sejnowski, T. (1992). The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Cicourel, A. V. (1995). Cognition and cultural belief. In P. Baumgartner & S. Payr (Eds.), Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists (pp. 33-46). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Clark, B. (1986). Optimizing learning: The integrative education model in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merril.
21. Descombes, V. (2001). The mind's provisions: A critique of cognitivism (S. A. Schwartz, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
23. Dickman, G. E. (1990). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm and quantitative accountability as the source of systematic weaknesses affecting education of individuals with learning disorders: Comment on Heshusius. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 139-140.
24. Dombrowski, S. C., Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed approach to learning disabilities classification. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 364-372.
25. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
26. Gillespie, D. (1992). The mind's we: Contextualism in cognitive psychology. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
27. Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the 2001 Learning Disabilities Summit. Retrieved August 29, 2002, from http://www.air.ord/ld_summit
28. Gresham, F., Reschly, D. W., Tilly, D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Crist, T., Prasse, D., Vanderwood, M., & Shinn, M. (2004). Viewpoint: Response to AASP. Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response-to- intervention perspective. Communique, 33(4), 34-35.
29. Haack, S. (1997). The puzzle of "scientific method". Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 51(202), 495-505.
30. Hale, J. B., Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., & Kavale, K. A. (2004). Specific learning disability classification in the new individuals with Disabilities in Education Act: The new Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 1, 6-29.
31. Harmon, J. E. (1994). The uses of metaphor in citation classics from the scientific literature. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(2), 179-194.
32. Heshusius, L. (1989). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 403-415.
33. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Addison-Wesley.
34. Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Kavale, K. A., Kaufman, A. S., Naglieri, J. A., & Hale, J. B. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 59(1), 16-25.
37. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 533-542). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202-251). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Lakoff, G. (1995). Embodied minds and meanings. In P. Baumgartner & S. Payr (Eds.), Speaking minds (pp. 115-129). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
43. Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius: Imagery and creativity in science and art. New York: Springer-Verlag.
44. Overton, W. F. (1984). World views and their influence on psychological thoughts and research: Khun-Lakatos-Laudan. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 91-226). New York: Academic Press.
45. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: The Viking Press.
47. Pianta, Robert C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers, (pp. 23-43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
48. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.
49. Pullman, B. (Ed.). (1996). The emergence of complexity in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
50. Siegel, L. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 304-319.
51. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Procedures for identifying intellectual potential in the gifted: A perspective on alternative "metaphors of mind." In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 185-207). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
53. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). (2002, July 25). Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding common ground. Retrieved September 11, 2002 from http://www.ldonline.org/news/commonground.html.
54. th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (data 1976-77 through 2001-02). Retrieved December 8, 2004, from http://nces.ed. gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt052.asp
55. Weizenbaum, J. (1995). The myth of the last metaphor. In P. B. S. Payr (Ed.), Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty cognitive scientists (pp. 249-264). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.