ÖZEL ÖĞRENME GÜÇLÜĞÜ OLAN ÖĞRENCİLERİ TANILAMAYA YÖNELİK MODELLER VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DURUM

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 663 - 674, 30.05.2022

Tahsin Fırat Ahmet Bildiren

https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.917755

Abstract

Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin erken ve doğru tanılanması ile ilgili problemler güncelliğini korumaktadır. Son 50 yıllık deneyimler öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin tanılanmasında farklı bakış açılarının oluşmasına neden olmuştur. Bu süreç boyunca yaygın olarak IQ-Başarı Tutarsızlığı, Müdahaleye Yanıt ve Güçlü ve Zayıf Yönler Örüntüsü Modellerinin öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencileri tanılamada kullanıldığı görülmektedir. Kullanılan her bir modelin öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencileri tanılamada belirli avantajlarının ve dezavantajlarının olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Bu modellerin özelliklerinin, avantajlarının ve dezavantajlarının ayrıntılı bir şekilde ortaya konulması öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin doğru tanılanmasına katkı sağlayacaktır. Türkiye’nin öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin tanılanmasındaki problemlerin üstesinden gelebilmesi için uluslararası alanyazında yer alan deneyimlerden faydalanması gerekmektedir. Bu doğrultuda öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin tanılanmasında Hibrit olarak ifade edilen karma modeller önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Öğrenme güçlükleri, tanılama, modeller

References

• Bakır, F. H., & Babür, N. (2018). Hızlı Otomatik İsimlendirme Testi’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 35(2), 35-51.
• Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., ... & Tilly III, W. D. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
• Beaujean, A. A., Benson, N. F., McGill, R. J., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2018). A misuse of IQ scores: Using the dual discrepancy/consistency model for identifying specific learning disabilities. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 1-25. doi:10.3390/jintelligence6030036
• Benson, N. F., Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., Eckert, T. L., Kranzler, J. H., & Fefer, S. A. (2020). A national survey of school psychologists’ practices in identifying specific learning disabilities. School Psychology, 35(2), 146–157.
• Birol, Z. N., & Aksoy Zor, E. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin özel öğrenme güçlüğü tanılı öğrencileriyle yaşadıkları sorunlara ilişkin görüşleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 887-918.
• Burns, M. K., Jacob, S., & Wagner, A. R. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 263-279.
• Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43(5), 393-406.
• Compton, D., Gilbert, J. K., Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Cho, E., Barquero, L. A., & Bouton, B. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to Tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 204–216.
• Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2007). Professional development, capacity building, and research needs: Critical issues for response to intervention implementation. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 632-637.
• Dombrowski, S. C., Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 364372.
• Eissa, M. A. (2018). Issues Related to Identification of Children with Specific Learning Disorders (SLDs): Insights into DSM-5. International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, 7(1), 106-111.
• Ergül, C., Yılmaz, Ç. Ö., & Demir, E. (2018). 5-10 yaş grubu çocuklara yönelik geliştirilmiş çalışma belleği ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 14(2), 187-214. Fırat, T. (2018). Öğrenme güçlükleri. Ü. Şahbaz (Ed.). Özel eğitim ve kaynaştırma (ss.288-318). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Fırat, T., & Koçak, D. (2020). Opinions of primary school teachers on the determination and referral of students with learning disabilities. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 13(2), 277-295.
• Fiorello, C. A., Flanagan, D. P., & Hale, J. B. (2014). Response to the special issue: The utility of the pattern of strengths and weak- nesses approach. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal ,20, 87-91.
• Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2010). A CHC-based operational definition of SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and multiple data-gathering methods. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso, Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 233–298). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Identifying learning disabilities in the context of response to intervention: A hybrid model. RTI Action Network.
• Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.
• Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 2-7.
• Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2019). The identification of specific learning disabilities: A summary of research on best practices. Texas Center for Learning Disabilities.
• Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.
• Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning disabilities, 38(2), 98-108.
• Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129-136.
• Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
• Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216-227.
• Fuchs, D., McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2013). Data-based individualization as a means of providing intensive instruction to students with serious learning disorders. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 526–544). New York, NY: Guilford.
• Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness‐to‐intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.
• Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of learning disabilities, 45(3), 195-203.
• Gartland, D., & Strosnider, R. (2020). The Use of Response to Intervention to Inform Special Education Eligibility Decisions for Students With Specific Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 195-200.
• Grigorenko, E.L., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Wagner, R.K., Willcutt, E.G., & Fletcher, J.M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. The American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51.
• Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., ... & Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223-236.
• Hale, J. B., Wycoff, K. L., & Fiorello, C. A. (2011). RTI and cognitive hypothesis testing for identification and intervention of specific learning disability. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 173–201). Hoboken: Wiley.
• Hoover, J. J. (2010). Special education eligibility decision making in response to intervention models. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 289-296.
• Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into practice, 50(1), 4-11.
• Kargin, T., & Guldenoglu, B. (2016). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice in Turkey. Learning Disabilities--A Contemporary Journal, 14(1), 71-78.
• Kargın, T., Ergül, C., Büyüköztürk, Ş., & Güldenoğlu, B. (2015). Anasınıfı çocuklarına yönelik Erken Okuryazarlık Testi (EROT) geliştirme çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 16(03), 237-270.
• Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(2), 113-127.
• Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 169-179.
• Kuruyer, H. G., & Çakıroğlu, A. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin eğitsel değerlendirme ve eğitimsel müdahale sürecinde görüş ve uygulamaları. Turkish Studies, 12 (28), 539-555.
• Kranzler, J. H., Benson, N., & Floyd, R. G. (2016). Intellectual assessment of children and youth in the United States of America: Past, present, and future. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4(4), 276-282.
• Kranzler, J. H., Gilbert, K., Robert, C. R., Floyd, R. G., & Benson, N. F. (2019). Further examination of a critical assumption underlying the dual-discrepancy/consistency approach to specific learning disability identification. School Psychology Review, 48(3), 207-221.
• Kranzler, J. H., Maki, K. E., Benson, N. F., Eckert, T. L., Floyd, R. G., & Fefer, S. A. (2020b). How do school psychologists interpret intelligence tests for the identification of specific learning disabilities?. Contemporary School Psychology, 1-12.
• Kranzler, J. H., Yaraghchi, M., Matthews, K., & Otero-Valles, L. (2020a). Does the Response-to-Intervention Model Fundamentally Alter the Traditional Conceptualization of Specific Learning Disability?. Contemporary School Psychology, 24(1), 80-88.
• Lopes, J. A., Gomes, C., Oliveira, C. R., & Elliott, J. G. (2020). Research studies on dyslexia: Participant inclusion and exclusion criteria. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(5), 587-602.
• Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., ... & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, 259-287.
• Maki, K. E. (2018). Response to intervention for specific learning disabilities identification: The impact of graduate preparation and experience on identification consistency. In School Psychology Forum, Research in Practice (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 6-16). National Association of School Psychologists.
• Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2019). A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications. Psychology in the Schools, 56(1), 18-31.
• Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2020). Specific Learning Disabilities Identification: Do the Identification Methods and Data Matter?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 63-74.
• Maki, K. E., Barrett, C. A., Hajovsky, D. B., & Burns, M. K. (2020). An examination of the relationships between specific learning disabilities identification and growth rate, achievement, cognitive ability, and student demographics. School Psychology, 35(5), 343-352.
• Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., & Roberson, T. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 457–469.
• McGill, R. J., & Busse, R. T. (2017). A rejoinder on the PSW model for SLD identification: Still concerned. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(1), 23-27.
• McGill, R. J., Conoyer, S. J., & Fefer, S. (2018). Elaborating on the linkage between cognitive and academic weaknesses: Using diagnostic efficiency statistics to inform PSW assessment. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 12(4), 118–132.
• Melekoğlu, M. (2017). Özel öğrenme güçlüğünün nedenleri ve özellikleri. M. A. Melekoğlu, U. Sak (Ed.). Özel öğrenme güçlüğü ve özel yetenek (pp.24-52). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Melekoğlu, M. A., Erden, H. G., & Çakıroğlu, O. (2021). Oral Reading Skills and Comprehension Test-II (SOBAT®-II): Assessment of reading fluency and comprehension of Turkish students with specific learning disabilities. South African Journal of Education, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n1a1880.
• Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343-353.
• Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., & Tolar, T. D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 21-37.
• Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2015). The effect of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3), 321-334.
• Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Stuebing, K. K., & Fletcher, J. M. (2018). Simulation of LD identification accuracy using a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses method with multiple measures. Journal of psychoeducational assessment, 36(1), 21-33.
• O’Connor, R.E., & Sanchez, V. (2011). Issues in assessment for intervention in implementation of responsiveness to intervention. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities, Vol. 24: Assessment and Intervention (pp. 149–170). UK: Emerald.
• Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883-888.
• Özmen, E.R. (2017). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrenciler. Diken, İ. H. (Ed), Özel gereksinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim özel eğitim (369-401). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Phipps, L., & Beaujean, A. A. (2016). Review of the pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach in specific learning disability identification. Research and Practice in the Schools, 4(1), 18-28.
• Reschly, D. J. (2014). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 39-58.
• Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009a). Response to intervention: Prevention and remediation, perhaps. Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 44-47.
• Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009b). Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130-145.
• Sakiz, H. (2018). Students with learning disabilities within the context of inclusive education: Issues of identification and school management. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(3), 285-305.
• Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
• Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Branum-Martin, L., Francis, D. J., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2012). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of three methods for identifying specific learning disabilities based on cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 3-22.
• Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
• Taylor, W. P., Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 446–457.
• Tosun, D., Arikan, S., & Babür, N. (2021). Teachers’ Knowledge and Perception about Dyslexia: Developing and Validating a Scale. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(2), 342-356.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2019). 41th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
• Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
• Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A response to “competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention” why response to intervention is necessary but not sufficient for identifying students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 58-61.
• Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244-256.
• Williams, J., & Miciak, J. (2018). Adoption costs associated with processing strengths and weaknesses methods for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Forum, 12, 17–19.