This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Conte, R. Articles by Andrews, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Conte, R. Articles by Andrews, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Social Skills in the Context of Learning Disability Definitions

A Reply to Gresham and Elliott and Directions for the Future

Richard Conte, PhD, obtained his doctoral degree from the University of Toronto in 1983. He is currently the research coordinator at the Learning Centre in Calgary and adjunct associate professor in the Department of Psychology, University of Calgary. His current interests are in social skills, attention deficit disorder, and parenting.

Jac Andrews

Jac Andrews, PhD, is an assistant professor of educational psychology and chair of special education/rehabilitation studies at the University of Calgary. He received his PhD from the University of Alberta in 1986. Dr. Andrews conducts research in cognitive strategy instruction within both the academic and social domains. Address: Richard Conte, The Learning Centre, 3930 20th St. SW, Calgary, Alberta T2T 4Z9.

In this article we review the evidence on the status of a social skills deficit as a learning disability (LD) by examining social skills deficits in the context of learning disability definitions. For the most part, social skills deficits fall within the terms that are specified in the definitions; that is, when there is evidence of neurological involvement, social skills deficit as a learning disability is consistent with the focus on listening and speaking that is characteristic of most definitions of learning disabilities. We also conclude that the absence of limiting conditions in extant definitions of learning disabilities makes it difficult to exclude any particular skill or type of knowledge from falling within the bounds of the definitions. Furthermore, we argue that the critical issue centers on the reformulation of the definition of learning disabilities. We suggest two directions in future work: First, the term "learning disability" should be limited to intentional learning contexts. Acceptance of this limitation would clarify at least some of the confusion regarding the domain of learning disabilities. Second, learning disability definitions should become more responsive to recent research on the nature of learning.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 26, No. 3, 146-153 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949302600301


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Kravetz, M. Faust, S. Lipshitz, and S. Shalhav LD, Interpsonal Understanding, and Social Behavior in the Classroom J Learn Disabil, May 1, 1999; 32(3): 248 - 255. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Kronick A Postmodern Critique of Conte's, Andrews's, Gresham's, and Elliott's Assumptions J Learn Disabil, December 1, 1993; 26(10): 648 - 652. [Abstract] [PDF]