Professional Development in Learning Disabilities
for Adult Literacy Providers

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO STERN CENTER INFORMATION PAGE

The following chapter was written by Dr. Blanche Podhajski, and published in Learning Disabilities, Literacy and Adult Education by Susan Vogel and Stephen Reder. Learning Disabilities, Literacy and Adult Education was published by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company in 1998, and can be purchased for $49.95 at (800) 638-3775 or at http://www.brookespublishing.com.

Blanche Podhajski

In the past, literacy and learning disabilities (LD) were considered very distinct issues. As literacy providers and policy makers placed greater emphasis on lifelong learning, however, interest in the relationship between literacy and LD intensified. This interest swelled within adult education programs, where individuals wrestling with literacy problems were concentrated. There is increasing evidence that adults with LD constitute a significant percentage of students in adult literacy basic education programs (Bowren, 1981; Gold, 1981; Thistlewaite, 1983).

LITERACY AND ADULT EDUCATION
As the field of LD has matured since its inception in 1963, so too has the group of individuals served. During the 1970s, attention expanded to include the needs of adults as well as children. Early interest in adults with LD focused on individuals who had been identified during childhood (Rogan & Hartman, 1990), particularly those who continued their education beyond high school (Patton & Polloway, 1982; Rogan & Hartman, 1990; Vogel, 1985; White, Schumaker, Warner, Alley, Deshler, 1980). Passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336) in 1990, establishment of the Goals 2000 initiative in 1991, and publication of results of the National Adult Literacy Survey in 1993 (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993) challenged adult educators to consider the needs of all adults, including those with LD, and rethink their definitions of literacy.

Traditional definitions of literacy focused on reading and writing, whereas current thinking expands the concept to a broader range of skills considered essential to functioning in work, home, and community environments: "using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential" (Kirsch et al., 1993, p. 2). The National Literacy Act defined literacy as "an individual’s ability to read, write, and speak in English, and compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and in society and achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential" (1991, p. 276). Sturomski (1996) confirmed that literacy definitions have varied according to the manner in which individuals must function: in the workplace, in the home, and in society at large.

Adult education programs have traditionally responded to widely diverse needs. Although research on adult literacy participation has emphasized that literacy development should not be limited to reading instruction (Wikelund, Reder, & Hart-Landsberg, 1992), it would be hard to ignore the important role of efficient reading ability in meaningful literacy. Limitations in basic reading skills are considered the most prevalent and often the most debilitating impairments to both children and adults (Learning Disabilities: A National Responsibility, 1995). Research in the area of reading disabilities in both children and adults must be communicated to adult literacy practitioners. In particular, there is a need to focus on improving adults’ persistent difficulties with basic word decoding in conjunction with reading comprehension in order to promote literacy.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Adult literacy providers have recognized that instruction in LD is important to improve their teaching skills and search for techniques and interventions to meet the needs of adults with LD (Osher & Webb, 1994). Although laudable, this quest is not simply fulfilled. LD as a concept defies consensus even at the very basic level of definition (Kavale & Forness, 1985). furthermore, there is a wide range of instructional methods for addressing LD, many of which lack clinical or scientific validity.

Serious concerns have been expressed about the failure of teacher preparation programs to equip public school educators with sufficient knowledge to meet the needs of students with LD (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 1994-1995). Yet the formal education available to teachers of children far exceeds that typically offered to teachers within adult education programs. In fact, many adult literacy practitioners are volunteers. Students whom they teach have known enormous academic frustration and often present complex learning difficulties. Thus, both students and teachers are vulnerable to failure (Schupack, 1992). Studies have emphasized the important relationships between professionalization of the literacy workforce and curriculum for literacy education (Lytle & Reumann, 1992; Lytle, Belzer, & Reumann, 1993).

Professional development within adult literacy programs has, however, been fraught with problems. Frequent staff turnover and fluctuating degrees of knowledge among the workforce are common. Unfortunately, adults eager to increase their literacy levels enter adult education programs often staffed by individuals with widely varying levels of expertise. Within the broad field of LD, however, knowledge about reading disabilities identification and instruction is becoming increasingly robust for both children and adults (Grossen, 1996). This information needs to be shared with adult literacy providers.

READING RESEARCH
Because the majority of adults seeking assistance from adult education programs are interested in improving their reading skills (Silver & Hagin, 1964), professional staff development should address what is known about successful reading instruction for both children and adults. Research has clearly established that phonological awareness, particularly at the sound level, is a prerequisite oral language process to successful reading and spelling (Blachman, 1991; Lewkowicz, 1980; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Stanovich, 1991). Phonological awareness is an awareness of, and the ability to manipulate the word, syllable, and sound segments represented in our language. Although most students develop phonological awareness intuitively or implicitly, a significant percentage of individuals exhibit impaired phonological awareness skills. Both individuals with LD and "garden variety" poor readers (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) show limitations in phonological awareness. Bruck showed that persisting phonological awareness limitations of adults with LD such as dyslexia "remain a crucial stumbling block for the acquisition of fluent word recognition skills throughout their life span" (1992, p. 885). Research specific to the relative effectiveness of various reading approaches to treating adult reading problems is sorely needed (Fowler & Scarborough, 1993). Nonetheless, clinical experience and research findings regarding phonological awareness impairment in adults with reading disabilities provide significant implications for literacy instruction. Studies supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) demonstrated that phonological awareness skills can be taught and that their effectiveness can be enhanced when followed by a code emphasis approach to reading (Lyon, 1995). Adult literacy providers must understand the crucial role of phonological awareness to reading and spelling and how limitations in the area can be identified and addressed educationally.

A DEMONSTRATION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A demonstration project to teach NICHD research-based reading strategies, focusing on phonological awareness and structured language concepts, was developed in Vermont for adult basic education (ABE) tutors. Content for this professional development course, "Teaching Adults with Learning Disabilities," followed a five-part sequence.

The first part introduced participants to the concept of the language continuum as it affects individuals with LD.

The next three parts addressed specific strategies for teaching the language skills of decoding (reading) and encoding (spelling).

The last part specifically concentrated on strategies for encoding.
The program was made available on videotape and is in use in 27 states. This project was based on research findings that adults with LD demonstrate some of the same types of underlying language limitations that are exhibited by children with reading disabilities. In order for adults to learn to read, they must learn how the English language is constructed and how speech maps to print. This professional program taught adult literacy providers how to analyze the language that they and their students use every day.

Adult literacy providers who participated in this professional program varied in experience, skill level, and professional training. None of them, however, were familiar with the most recent research findings from the NICHD and how this information affects assessment and instruction of adults with LD.

Because Vermont is a rural state with a widely dispersed population, instruction was provided through interactive television. The program included 12 hours of instruction to more than 100 ABE tutors throughout the state. A vital component of the program was active participation by selected ABE participants who were videotaped while receiving remedial instruction at the Stern Center for Language and Learning. These videotapes served as accompanying demonstrations for didactic coursework. On course completion, follow-up visits were made to each of the 17 ABE sites to meet individually with tutors to help them implement course content.

The Language Continuum
Language difficulties in adults with LD affect listening, speaking, reading, and writing. They need to be addressed within both auditory and visual contexts across the language continuum. The concept of a language continuum is central to understanding that reading and spelling are as much language functions as are listening and speaking (see Figure 10.1). It is also essential to underscoring the notion that print maps to speech. Johnson (1993) reported that adults with LD experience challenges not just in reading and writing but with one or more aspects of spoken language as well. Adult literacy providers must understand that language disorders associated with LD persist into adolescence and adulthood (Wiig, 1996).

Features of language include metalinguistics, phonology, semantics, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. These features were described to adult educators in the professional development course, citing characteristic language behaviors and examples. It is known that individuals with reading disabilities experience difficulties with oral language, specifically word finding, short-term verbal memory, and production of multi-syllabic words.

Metalinguistics

Most adults with LD have difficulties with metalinguistics, or with knowing how language is used. Metalinguistic tasks such as sentence building and using specific words in sentences pose particular difficulties for adults with LD (Johnson, 1993; Johnson & Blalock, 1987). Wiig (1996) cited the following metalinguistic-cognitive abilities as characteristic of mature communicators and impairments among adults with LD:

Phonology In addition to displaying difficulties in segmenting words into sounds and syllables, adults also show evidence of sound production and sequencing difficulties (Johnson, 1993). These kinds of errors frequently occur in the absence of articulation difficulties (e.g., "pacific"/specific, "temptature"/temperature). Difficulties with phonology are evident in word-finding errors commonly experienced by poor readers (e.g., "telescope"/microscope). Liberman, Shankweiler, and Liberman (1989) described instances of word miscallings in which sounds produced follow the same patter of syllabification, stress, and vowel use (i.e., "tornado"/volcano). Adult educators need to be alert to these kinds of errors in their students’ spoken language because such limitations will be mirrored in written language, particularly spelling.

Semantics Word understanding and usage are difficult for adults with LD. Often their vocabularies are impoverished because they have not read widely (Johnson, 1993). Difficulties with specific kinds of words, such as spatial words (beneath, next to, left/right), and relational words, such as prepositions (with, except), conjunctions (since, if, but, or, because, although), and interrogative pronouns (who, what, where, when, why), are common. Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) described abstract vocabulary difficulties among poor readers. Solving verbal problems such as analogies taps difficulties with part-whole relationships, synonyms, antonyms, and function words. Verbal ambiguities, multiple meanings, metaphorical language, and use of speech are challenging as well (Johnson, 1993). Wiig (1996) discussed the importance of verbal concept understanding both for spontaneous, everyday life and for scientific, academic, or vocational purposes. For example, not understanding the phrase in the ozone may suggest a difficulty with the multiple meanings of words as they are used in a social context or a lack of knowledge about actual definition of a scientific term. In either case, language difficulties limit access to social and job opportunities otherwise available to adults who use language effectively.

Morphology Difficulties with morphology are evident in the language of adults with LD. Most common, the plural marker s is used incorrectly. Parts of speech are also often confused (e.g., adjectives for nouns). Vogel (1977) found that college-age students with LD did not respond correctly to every item when tested on a grammatical completion activity assessing the application of morphological rules to nonsense words. Errors included both incorrect and omitted word endings. Adults with language problems often have difficulties in determining word meanings through the analysis of word roots and origins because of difficulties not only with the meanings of base words but also with the meanings of affixes (pre-, -ment, post-, -tion).

Syntax Adults with LD often experience difficulties despite adequate conversational abilities. Johnson (1993) identified specific difficulties with syntax in this group with subject-verb agreement and pronoun reference. Syntax difficulties are more clearly apparent in written language when difficulties with active/passive voice and embedded clauses are evident. Both Gregg (1992) and Johnson (1987) postulated syntax as one of the linguistic processing impairments responsible for the prevalence of written language difficulties in adults.

Pragmatics Pragmatics, or language in use, is often a difficulty for adults with LD, and one that can affect social relationships. Difficulties in understanding and using slang expressions and idioms are common. Adults also frequently lack a sense of audience to guide them in different listening and speaking situations, such as informal conversation with a spouse as opposed to a formal interview with a prospective employer. Wiig (1996) posited that pragmatic difficulties in adults with LD may result from a lack of linguistic flexibility, difficulty in perspective taking (conceptual or affective), or difficulties in abstracting or internalizing communication maxims and social conventions. Nonverbal communication skills, often called body language, may also be underdeveloped.

Strategies for Teaching Language Skills
Commonly used approaches to reading instruction include language experience and whole-language programs. Language experience and whole-language approaches share the belief that the "whole" or textual integrity of reading takes precedence over any structured presentation of the "parts" (i.e., phonics). Practices employed by Literacy Volunteers of America and users of the Laubach Reading System are reviewed briefly here. Rather than beginning with text, structured language programs build from more discrete phonological units of sounds and symbols to generalization of these concepts within connected text. Because the goal of the Teaching Adults with Learning Disabilities course was to share the basic tenets of phonological awareness training and structured language programs with adults literacy providers, these concepts are discussed in greater detail.

Language Experience/Whole Language Language experience, the older of the two primary reading instruction approaches, achieved its greatest popularity since the 1970s and remains a favorite among teachers of adult learners. In the language experience approach, language of interest to the student guides explanation of how the reading process works. Practitioners view language experience as an attractive way to enable adults to drive their own reading programs. Topics focusing on sports, hobbies, or careers often govern vocabulary selection and the establishment of word patterns.

Whole language, a popular philosophy of teaching reading in the primary grades, is a literature-based approach that links reading to writing. Similar to language experience, it also underscores the importance of student-driven learning goals.

Literacy Volunteers of America One of the major providers of literacy services to adults, Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA), uses a whole-language approach. LVA emphasizes learner-center activities when tutoring students both individually and in small groups. LVA practitioners believe that people use their life experiences and knowledge of what makes sense when learning to read and write. In addition to materials tied to the learners’ goals and interests, LVA stresses the use of literature and "real-life" materials such as newspapers or employment forms. The learning of reading always occurs within a print context that has meaning for the learner. Word analysis skills in terms of sound-symbol relationships and word patterns are taught implicitly as needed to complete authentic reading and writing tasks selected by the student (Literacy Volunteers of America, 1997).

Laubach Way to Reading One of the most widely used reading programs within adult literacy centers is the Laubach Way to Reading. As their publishing materials emphasize, a Laubach program is designed for "new readers." It consists of four structured workbooks that present letter-sound correspondences from single consonants to diphthongs. Curtis and Chmelka (1994) modified the Laubach Way to Reading for use with adolescents with LD. Use of this method suggests improvement in reading skills and empathizes with the need to include materials that provide students with opportunities to generalize and extend information learned. The Laubach curriculum has been used to teach adults to read in English as well as in 300 other languages. Combining principles of phonics instruction with whole language, the Laubach curriculum requires minimal teacher preparation and experience. As of 1998, it does not include training in phonological awareness, nor does it explicate rules governing English orthography.

Structured Language Programs Structured language programs are designed to teach sound-symbol correspondences directly. They follow a systematic sequence from simple to complex and emphasize multisensory instruction whereby targeted print concepts are seen (visual), heard (auditory), and felt (kinesthetic). Popular structured language programs include Orton-Gillingham, Project Read, Recipe for Reading, the Wilson Reading System (see Chapter 11), and the Herman Method.

Structured language programs differ from other reading approaches mainly in the explicitness with which they teach phonology. Whereas other approaches assume that students will learn basic sound-symbol correspondence intuitively, structured language programs explicate how printed symbols map to speech sounds. For those 20% of learners who do not intuit our language code, structured language programs are more effective. Research from the NICHD has shown that structured language programs produce positive results for individuals with LD (Foorman et al., 1998).

Key Concepts for Instruction Phonological awareness, knowing that spoken language can be broken down into smaller units, has been identified as a skill that is frequently limited among individuals with LD (Stanovich, 1988). Although phonics is often a component part of many reading instruction programs in adult literacy centers, it differs from phonological awareness in that, in phonics instruction, letters accompany sounds. Phonological awareness is a metalinguistic skill that requires that an individual be able to segment words into syllables or sounds auditorily before letters are even introduced. Many students do not learn to read even when provided written phonics instruction, because they lack the prerequisite understanding of the basic syllable and sound units within spoken language.

Identification In the teacher instruction course, adult educators were taught how to assess phonological awareness limitations by using an informal phonological awareness screening test adapted from the Test of Awareness of Language Semantics (Sawyer, 1987). This test involved using blocks or chips to divide sentences into words, words into syllables and into syllables, and syllables into sounds following their oral presentation.

Developing an awareness when listening to the conversation of adult students can supply a further index to phonological awareness difficulties. Difficulties with phonological awareness are frequently seen in the speech patterns of adults who omit, substitute, or transpose syllables or sounds when articulating (i.e., "pacific"/specific, "temptature"/temperature, "eksalate"/escalate).

Training Students who display significant difficulty on the informal phonological awareness screening test by not correctly using blocks to sequence words, syllables, or sounds are good candidates for phonological awareness training. A series of phonological awareness skills was presented to adult educators to further instruct them in the important of this developmental sequence and as a guide to educational intervention. This sequence includes

During this course, training procedures were discussed and demonstrated through videotapes of adults being taught using structured language methods. A modified bridge game (Zhurova, 1973) was developed to help adults isolate initial sounds. Elkomin’s (1973) procedures were used to develop awareness of sound segments within monosyllabic words using picture cues (see Figure 10.2). Teaching strategies also extended to sound manipulation activities adapted from Lindamood and Lindamood (1975): "If that says bed, show me bet; if that says mat, show me mit." Practice in manipulating initial, medial, and final sounds demonstrates the power that a finite number of sounds has to constructing a limitless number of words.

Phonological awareness skills were stressed as essential to the reading and spelling success of adults with LD. The hardest concept for adult educators to grasp was the notion that letters are not introduced until sound units within words are understood. Blocks were thus used to demonstrate knowledge of syllable and sound segmentation within words before letter anagrams were introduced. With adult learners, letter anagrams can be presented more quickly than with children because most adults are already aware that sounds are associated with letters. Being able to identify that /church/ has only three sounds despite having six letters is an important concept that requires careful instruction. Similarly, vowel confusions, particularly between short /e/ and short /i/, frequently are extremely difficult for individuals with a reading disability.

Structured Language Teaching The progression from phonological awareness instruction to the basic rules and concepts of structured language programs is a logical one. The code emphasis approach to reading that structured language programs espouse has been demonstrated to enhance the effectiveness of phonological awareness instruction (Foorman et al., 1998). Research has also established that there is a reciprocal relationship between phonological awareness and reading ability. That is, just as reading skills can be improved through phonological awareness, phonological awareness skills are strengthened as reading abilities increase (Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979).

The Language of Language Because individuals with LD have difficulties at the very basic levels of language usage, key vocabulary for phonics instruction must be taught. Concepts such as phonemes, syllables, prefixes, suffixes, and phonics were defined for adult educators. Consonants were identified according to whether they have one or multiple sounds and by consonant blends. The course emphasized that adult educators need to provide their students with the basic rule that governs our alphabetic orthographic system: that each syllable must have a vowel. Syllables are then categorized according to how vowels function within them (see Table 10.1).

Table 10.1. Categorization of syllables according to vowel function

Syllable Description Examples

Closed syllable One vowel, followed by a cosonant; the vowel is short
Examples: mug, stomp, at, attic

Silent e syllable Vowel-consonant-silent e; the vowel is long and e is silent
Examples: bake, explode, concrete

Open syllable Vowel at the end of a syllable; the vowel is long
Examples: she, we, fever, robot, bagel

R-controlled syllable Vowel paired with an r; it has a different sound: /ur/, /er/, /ir/, /or/, /ar/
Examples: murder, thunder, squirrel, barnyard

Consonant-le syllable Comes at the end of a word; /le/ sounds like /ul/
Examples: trample, tackle

Vowel team syllable Vowel spelled with two letters

Vowel teams /ai + ay/ mail, sustain, mayonnaise
/ee + ea/ employee, eagle
/oa + ow/ approach, growth

Diphthongs/glided sounds /ou + ow/ outlaw, power
/oi + oy/ oil, ointment, boy, oyster

Vowel teams with unique sounds /au + aw/ pauper, saw
/oo/ moon, cook
/ue + ew/ blue, flew

Syllable oddities /tion/ + /sion/ action, occasion
/cian/ + /cious/ magician, audacious

Source: Stern Center T•I•M•E for Teachers (1996).

Use of a Resource Notebook Two characteristic features of individuals with LD are poor memory and disorganization. To meaningfully generalize structured language concepts when reading text, students must be able to recall concepts taught. To provide them with a systematic and ordered format within which to do so, adult educators are encouraged to make resource notebooks with each of their students. Important concepts learned can be inserted and become dictionaries of information. The student is then able to look up the content of instruction when the instructor is not available, encouraging independence, promoting initiative, and facilitating recall.
Difference Between Synthetic and Analytic Phonics A common confusion among instructors of individuals with LD is the teaching of analytic phonics instead of synthetic phonics. The difference can be most easily remembered when considering the origin of the words that characterize their differences: analysis and synthesis. Analytic phonics encourages the student to analyze syllables for phonic elements. Synthetic phonics teaches students discrete sounds that they can then synthesize into syllables and words.

Analytic phonics is frequently referred to as a word family approach. For many individuals with reading disabilities, analytic phonics is not sufficiently explicit and lends itself to rote memorization of rhyming word patterns. Once the basic concepts of sound-symbol correspondence have been mastered, analytic phonics can be extremely helpful as a tool for generalizing phonics applications.

Advanced Structured Language Concepts Adult literacy providers were also taught rules governing more advanced structured language concepts. These included rules of syllabification and principles of structural analysis. Participants learned how to teach their students to divide words into syllables, labeling each according to the six syllable types that had previously been taught.

Specific Encoding Strategies
Adults who have histories of reading problems continue to experience difficulty in spelling. The mistaken notion that people are "born spellers" and cannot be taught how to spell correctly must be dispelled. Adult literacy providers were shown how to facilitate the development of spelling skills by using specific teaching strategies. Providers learned the importance of teaching spelling rules for plurals, base words, and suffixes.

Instructional Materials
Participants in this professional development program came from 17 different ABE sites throughout Vermont. To enable them to have assessment and instructional materials available within their own regions, three assessment tools and seven instructional resources were supplied (see Suggested Readings at the end of this chapter).

Family Literacy Library
The vast majority of adults seeking services through ABE programs are in their child-rearing years (Wells, 1985). Therefore, children’s literature books were selected as vehicles for encouraging application of concepts taught within text. Although not all children’s books conformed to phonetically regular decoding principles, instructors were encouraged to select vocabulary that was rule based, thus demonstrating how many words conformed to structured language principles. We know that 50% of our language is phonetically predictable and that another 37% is usually phonetically predictable (Moats, 1996). Enabling adults to have control over 87% of their language provides them with a powerful tool and offers adult students the opportunity to read the majority of English words to their young families. Children’s literature also enriches vocabulary and verbal thinking.

Providing adult learners with materials that they can read to their children was found to be highly motivational and a way to break the cycle of illiteracy that so frequently runs in families. Furthermore, being read to as a child is one of the best predictors of later reading success.

Follow-Up
Because research has shown that didactic instruction in and of itself is insufficient for generalization of skills taught, follow-up consultations were also provided to all adult education participants. Stern Center instructors provided follow-up consultation at each ABE site throughout the state during the 4 months following class participation. These "mentorships" are considered essential to meaningful application of instructional principles.

Outcome evaluations indicated that this course provided significant new information to ABE tutors and was favorably received. Many participants, however, felt that greater time was needed to fully assimilate concepts presented, generalize them, and incorporate them into a regular teaching routine. Further follow-up coursework was requested by participants.

Conclusion
As research strides are made with regard to effective teaching methods for people who have not learned how to read, proven approaches to instruction must be shared with teachers. Because the instruction of adult educators in the area of LD is particularly sparse, this kind of information is all the more crucial. Professional development programs need to emphasize language issues that are pervasive among adults with LD. Furthermore, professional development must capitalize on the most efficacious instructional interventions to address language difficulties. Structured instruction programs in research-proven reading instruction methods are essential to address the needs of not only adults with LD but also those who have "fallen through the cracks" with traditional reading curricula.

Instruction models that underscore phonological awareness identification and instruction as well as teach structured language concepts will be important to include within professional development offerings. If traditional coursework is not accessible because of geographic constraints, videotaped courses should be considered. In this way, both providers and recipients of literacy programs will be better served.

Teaching Adults With Learning Disabilities, a professional development program that included both a didactic course and a follow-up mentorship, offered adult literacy providers an opportunity to learn about research findings that affect reading instruction and apply them when teaching adult learners. Information about the importance of phonological awareness and structured language, from the perspective of both assessment and instruction, was well received. Unfortunately, given the high turnover rate among adult literacy providers, ongoing professional development is necessary. The videotape training series that resulted from this professional development initiative was valuable in supplying literacy centers with this kind of ongoing inservice training. Mentorships, however, were not available to adult literacy providers who received the instruction via videotape. Several instructors became so enthused about the information that they themselves sought further instruction and became providers for new or under-serviced staff.

Adult learners were the most obvious beneficiaries of this professional development initiative. As one 37-year-old man perceptively commented: "It’s not that no one never taught me how to read before. It’s just that no one ever took me back far enough. They didn’t know what I didn’t know." Teaching Adults With Learning Disabilities provided these individuals with a new opportunity to achieve literacy.

REFERENCES
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, PL 101-336, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.

Blachman, B.A. (1991). Early intervention for children with reading problems: Clinical applications of the research in phonological awareness. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(1), 51-65.

Bowren, F.F. (1981). Teaching the learning disabled adult to read. Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 5(3), 179-184.

Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874-886.

Catts, H. (1991). Early identification of reading disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(1), 1-16.

Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Curtis, M.E., & Chmelka, M.B. (1994). Modifying the "Laubach Way to Reading" program for use with adolescents with LDs. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(1), 38-43.

Elkonin, D.B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Eds.), Comparative reading (pp. 551-579). New York: Macmillan.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Schatschneider, C., Mehta, P., & Beeler, T. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Fowler, A.E., & Scarborough, H.S. (1993). Should reading-disabled adults be distinguished from other adults seeking literacy instruction? A review of theory and research (TR93-7). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Gold, P.C. (1981). The DI-LEA: A remedial approach for nonreaders with a language deficiency handicap. Adult Literacy and Basic Education, 5(3), 185-192.

Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.

Gregg, N. (1992). Expressive writing disorders. In S.R. Hooper, G.W. Hynd, & R.E. Mattison (Eds.), Developmental disorders: Diagnostic criteria and clinical assessment (pp. 127-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grossen, B. (1996). 30 years of research: What we now know about how children learn to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Johnson, D.J. (1987). Introduction and definition of the problem. In D.J. Johnson & J.W.

Blalock (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities: Clinical studies (pp. 1-7). Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

Johnson, D.J. (1993). Relationships between oral and written language. School Psychology Review, 22(4), 595-609.

Johnson, D.J., & Blalock, J.W. (Eds.). (1987). Adults with learning disabilities: Clinical studies. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1985). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego: College- Hill Press.

Kirsch, I.S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service

Learning disabilities: A national responsibility. (1995). New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Lewkowicz, N.K. (1980). Phonemic awareness training: What to teach and how to teach it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 686-700.

Lindamood, C.H., & Lindamood, P.C. (1975). The A.D.D. program: Auditory discrimination in depth (2nd ed.). Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corp.

Liberman, I., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8-17.

Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler & A. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle (pp. 1-33). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Literacy Volunteers of America. (1997). LVA philosophy and approaches. (Available: http://archon.educ.kent.edu/LVA/facts.htm.)

Lyon, R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120-126.

Lytle, A.B. & Reumann, R. (1992). Invitations to inquiry: Rethinking staff development in adult literacy education (TR92-2). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Lytle, S.L., Belzer, A., & Reumann, R. (1993). Initiating practitioner inquiry: Adult literacy teachers, tutors, and administrators research their practice (TR93-11). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Moats, L.C. (1996, July). Oral presentation at T•I•M•E for Teachers, Burlington, Vermont. Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phonemes arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323-331.

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (1994-1995, Winter). Verdict on teachers: Training needed. NCLD News, pp. 8.

National Literacy Act of 1991, PL 102-73, 20 U.S.C. §§ 12089a et seq.

Osher, D., & Webb, L. (1994). Adult literacy, learning disabilities and social context: Conceptual foundations for a learner centered approach. Washington, DC: Pelavin Associates.

Patton, J., & Polloway, E. (1982). Learning disabilities: The adult years. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 79-88.

Rogan, L., & Hartman, L. (1990). Adult outcome of learning disabled students ten years after initial follow-up. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 92-102.

Sawyer, D.J. (1987). Test of Awareness of Language Segments. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Schupack, H.M. (1992). Illiteracy. Network Exchange, 8(1), 4-7.

Silver, A., & Hagin, R. (1964). Specific reading disability: Follow-up studies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34, 85.

Stanovich, K.E. (1988). Explaining the difference between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-612.

Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Cognitive science meets beginning reading. Psychological Science, 2(70), 77-81.

Stern Center for Language and Learning. (1994). Teaching adults with learning disabilities. Winooski, VT: Author.

Sturomski, N. (1996). Literacy needs for adults who have learning disabilities. In N. Greg, C. Joy, & A. Gay (Eds.). Adults with learning disabilities (pp. 261-276). New York: The Guilford Press.

Thislewaite, L. (1983). Teaching reading to the ABE student who cannot read. Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 7(1), 5-7.

Vogel, S.A. (1977). Morphological ability in normal and dyslexic children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(1), 41-49.

Vogel, S.A. (1985). Learning disabled college students: Identification, assessment and outcomes. In D. Duane & C.K. Leong (Eds.), Understanding learning disabilities: International and multidisciplinary views (pp. 179-203). New York: Plenum Press.

Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy related activities and success in school. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hilyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning (pp. 229-255). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

White, W., Shumaker, J., Warner, M., Alley, G., & Deshler, D. (1980). The current status of young adults identified as learning disabled during their school career (Research Report No. 21). Lawrence: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.

Wiig, E. (1996). Language and communication disorders in adults with learning disabilities. In N. Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. Gay(Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities (pp. 232-260). New York: The Guilford Press.

Wikelund, K.R., Reder S., & Hart-Landsberg, S. (1992). Expanding theories of adult literacy participation: A literature review (TR92-1). Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Zhurova, L.E. (1973). The development of analysis of words into their sounds by pre-school children. Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry, 2, 17-27.

SUGGESTED READINGS

Assessment
Arena, J. (1982) Diagnostic Spelling Potential Test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.

Gallistel, E., & Ellis, K. (1974). Gallistel-Ellis Test of Coding Skills. Hamden, CT: Montage Press.

Wilkinson, G.S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.

Instruction
Dynamic ways to teach the fundamentals of reading. (1989). Bloomington, MN: Extend-A-Word Games and Lessons/Hoiland Publications.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B.W. (1960). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Garside, A.H. (1960). A key to the Gillingham Manual (7th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Gillingham, A. (1992). Phonics drill card for remedial reading and spelling (Green 7th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Lindamood, C., & Lindamood, L. (1979). Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Sawyer, D. (1987). Test of Awareness of Language Segments. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Steere, A., Peck, C.Z., & Kahn, L. (1984). Solving language difficulties: Remedial routines. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Stone, J.M. (1997). Syllable Plus. Lincoln, NE: Educational Tutorial Consortium, Inc.

Traub, N., & Bloom, F. (1992). Recipe for reading (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

Vogel, S. A., Reder, S. (Eds.) (1998). Learning Disabilities, Literacy and Adult Education (pp. 191-212). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company (#3475; $49.95); toll-free telephone: 1-800-638-3775; fax 410-337-8539; web-site: www.brookespublishing.com.