## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Question inefficient methods before accepting diagnosis**: Many apparent learning difficulties result from poor teaching methods rather than inherent disabilities > - **Correlation vs causation in brain research**: Brain differences don't prove causation; thinking patterns influence neural pathways > - **Psychology lacks verification methods**: Unlike medicine, psychological diagnoses cannot be directly measured or confirmed through objective tests ## Definition **Learning Disabilities**: Diagnosed conditions affecting learning ability, though research suggests many cases may result from ineffective teaching methods rather than inherent neurological differences. ## Connected To [[Non-Explicit Teaching]] | [[Reading Wars]] | [[Correlation does not equal causation]] | [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Worked Examples]] --- ## Diagnosis and Verification: Medical versus Psychological A fundamental distinction separates medical diagnosis from psychological diagnosis. Medical diagnosis relies on objective verification: blood tests confirm infections, imaging identifies injuries or tumours, cultures reveal pathogens. A doctor diagnoses pneumonia when bacteria or viruses are directly identified. The cause of the condition is established, and treatment can target that verified cause. Psychological diagnosis operates differently. No equivalent objective tests exist. Conditions like dyslexia or ADHD are diagnosed through behavioural observation alone. When a student struggles with reading, clinicians infer learning disability from observable performance, but cannot directly measure the supposed neurological difference. The leap from behaviour to neurological cause relies on [[Correlation Does Not Equal Causation|correlation]] rather than direct evidence. ## Brain Research and Dyslexia Brain scans do show differences between people with dyslexia and proficient readers (Gabrieli, 2009; Shaywitz et al., 2008). However, a critical gap separates observation from understanding. These differences represent correlations, not proven causation (Vellutino et al., 2004). Neural pathways change based on thinking patterns and practice. Students who receive poor reading instruction, such as [[Reading Wars|whole-language]] approaches without systematic phonics, develop different neural patterns than those taught systematically (Moats, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000). Brain differences observed in struggling readers could result from either an inherent neurological condition or years of practising inefficient reading methods. Current research cannot determine which explanation applies. When brain differences are treated as proof of disability rather than potential consequences of poor teaching, students are routed into accommodation rather than remediation (Vellutino et al., 2004). A student receiving years of ineffective instruction develops both behavioural reading difficulties and associated neural differences. Neuroimaging then confirms the neural difference, which is interpreted as evidence of inherent disability, when it may actually reflect the accumulated impact of instructional failure. ## Teaching Implications ### Initial Response to Student Struggle When students struggle with learning tasks, the first response should not be referral for diagnostic testing. Instead, examine the teaching methods being used. Students receiving inefficient instruction, such as [[Non-Explicit Teaching]] that leaves foundational skills to implicit discovery, may appear to have learning disabilities when they actually lack systematic instruction in required skills. The appropriate first step is to provide high-quality [[Explicit Teaching]]. This means identifying specific skill gaps through [[Diagnostic Questions]] and providing systematic instruction in missing prerequisites before considering whether inherent difficulties exist. Research suggests a very small percentage of students have genuine cognitive disabilities preventing mainstream curriculum access; the majority of students struggling with academics likely lack foundational skills due to instructional gaps (Fletcher et al., 2018; Stanovich, 1986). ### Addressing Rather Than Accommodating A crucial distinction exists between addressing skill deficits and accommodating them. Addressing means providing intensive, systematic instruction to build missing skills and eliminate gaps. Accommodation means working around perceived deficits without building capacity, which creates permanent dependence on support. Evidence indicates many students benefit more from addressing skill gaps through quality teaching than from accommodation strategies that bypass skill development (Hattie, 2009; Vellutino et al., 2004). Accommodation may provide short-term comfort but often ensures long-term limitation. A student who receives a reader for all assessments never develops reading skills. A student taught reading systematically gains independence. The instructional choice made early determines long-term outcomes. ## Critical Questions for Practice Before referring a student for disability evaluation, teachers should examine their own instructional practice. Has the student received systematic, explicit instruction? Are apparent difficulties consistent across all contexts, or do they appear only in certain subjects or with particular teaching approaches? Have prerequisite skills been properly assessed and taught, or have foundational gaps been overlooked? Could the observed struggles result from instructional rather than neurological factors? The focus should remain on solutions: high-quality teaching that builds rather than bypasses essential skills. Many students gain significantly from teachers changing instructional approaches before any diagnostic process occurs. ## References Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). *Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention* (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Gabrieli, J. D. (2009). Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and cognitive neuroscience. *Science*, 325(5938), 280-283. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1171999 Hattie, J. (2009). *Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement*. Routledge. Moats, L. C. (2000). *Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers*. Paul H. Brookes. National Reading Panel. (2000). *Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction*. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 59, 451-475. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093633 Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. *Reading Research Quarterly*, 21(4), 360-407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1 Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? *Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry*, 45(1), 2-40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x