SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS  AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Summary

            Every nation wants to make its future bright and the future of nation lies in hand of their children.  Developed nations try to use all their resources for betterment of their young generation to make their own bright future.

            Learning disability is a universal problem that occurs in all languages, cultures and nation in the world.  The problem is neither existing to the United States nor to English speaking countries but all over the world.

            One of the factor involved to hinder student learning disabilities are the presence of identification of learning disabilities among them.  This factor needs a lot of attention by teachers that’s why an important topic for research was chosen.  Definition of learning disabilities can vary under different setting.  After studying related literature of other studies and the instrument of the study have taken from Ph.D studies.

            These instruments (I.Q. test, Test Battery and Screening Checklist for teachers) covered different aspects of learning disabilities which are mentioned in the third chapter.  A sample of 34 students were selected from the schools of Lahore city.  To administer the I.Q. test, test battery and screening checklist personal contacts were made and they filled these tests.

            For data analysis the scores of test battery and I.Q. test was compared.  At the end based upon the analysis the conclusions were written then discussions were made.

            A brief description of recommendations is also given in the light of research so that some possible improvements may be made in this respect.

Objectives of the Study

            Following were the main objectives of the study:

1.                  To determine the study of learning disabilities among secondary school students.

2.                  To identify the listening disabilities among secondary school students.

3.                  To identify the spelling disabilities.

4.                  To identify the reading disabilities.

5.                  To identify the writing disabilities.

6.                  To identify the learning disabilities among 6^th and 7^th class students.

Conclusions and Discussions

            Students identified by the teachers with the help of screening checklist are having average I.Q. ranging from 83–113 which are student number           1 – 7,9,11-29,32-34. Where as student number 8,10,30,31 have above average I.Q that is 133,128,123,133 respectively.

Student Numbers 1-34 (except student number 5) are having discrepancy between I.Q. and sequential problem test. Only one student (number 5) does not have sequential problem.

            Student numbers 3,4,8,15,20 and 27 are having discrepancy between I.Q. and non-verbal problem test and other students are not having learning disability in non-verbal problem test.

            Student numbers 2,3,6,7,10-16,18,24-26,28-30, and 34 are having discrepancy between I.Q. and direction problem test and other students are not having learning disability in direction problem test.

            Student numbers 1,2,7,8,13,15,17,28 and 31 are having discrepancy between I.Q. and distance problem test, and other students are not having learning disability in distance problem test.

            Student numbers 1-4, 6-26, 28-31, 33 and 34 are having discrepancy between I.Q. and verbal problem test and other students are not having learning disability in verbal problem test.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.      The students with disabilities should be provided special education services. Such an approach can simplify the path from concern to action, calling upon parents and school personnel to act quickly and with purpose and precision in order to address students’ learning difficulties.

2.      There should be flexibility and collaboration among regular and special education and related services personnel, and reduce the lengthy cycles of school failure many students experience before getting the help they need.

3.      It is particularly sensitive to meeting the needs of young school-age children, and should result in the added benefit of careful documentation and shared responsibility for student learning, both in general and special education settings.

4.      This flexible, collaborative problem-solving approach seeks to minimize the risk of students being overlooked or caught in a system where delay in classification allows students to continue to fail to learn. In addition, it could ensure that students identified for special education and related services are those truly in need of specialized instruction, and not those whose instructional needs could be adequately addressed by re-focused regular education efforts or remedial and supplementary educational programs.

5.      The process of determining student eligibility for special education services should be enhanced by the use of effective response-to-intervention procedures.

6.      Decisions about students’ specific instructional needs are based primarily on a student’s lack of responsiveness to effective instruction. This means that a first step toward identifying students who might need special education services is to determine whether the instructional environment is adequately individualized, structured and supportive to facilitate learning for all capable students.

7.      Targeted interventions should be implemented with fidelity, and data should be collected on student performance. The effects of interventions should be monitored and decisions about types (and intensity) of ongoing instruction and support should be made for individual students at the classroom level.

8.      Student progress should be carefully documented within clear timelines, and response to instruction provides additional validation of students’ specific instructional needs, as well as informs decisions about how each student could best be served by special and regular education and related services personnel.

9.      Students in need of special education services should be provided relevant instruction and support, with ongoing collaboration among regular and special education and related services personnel. 

10. Provide funding for training of all school teachers in the elements of a research based curriculum to prevent reading disabilities.

11. Following kind of instructional activities should be considered to prevent Reading Disabilities.

·        Adult-child shared book reading that stimulates verbal interaction to enhance language (especially vocabulary) development and knowledge about print concepts.

·        Activities that direct young children’s attention to the phonological structure of spoken words (e.g. games, songs, and poems that emphasize rhyming or manipulation of sounds).

·        Activities that highlight the relations between print and speech.

12. Identify a task force of experts in pre-school literacy enhancement to propose a set of developmental standards for emergent literacy skills. These should include standards for letter knowledge, phonemic awareness, and oral language skills.

13. Provide a mechanism to train pre-school program administrators

and/or teachers to give appropriate assessments of risk factors for reading disabilities to all children.

14. Develop a screening/diagnostic tool for identification of early reading difficulties beginning in pre-Nursery.