THE ELEMENTARY LEARNING DISABILITY PROCESS GROUP AND THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

GARY W. LEDEBUR

Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit

This paper proposes a model of a roces group conducted with elementary learning disabled students. The sc$ool psychologist is roposed &s leader of the group. Five goals are identified and the process of tge group is discussed. Specific procedures are mentioned to enable the school psychologist to con- duct a process group. The process group can be an effective addition to the various intervention strategies used with learning disabled children.

All children have developmental tasks and specific coping behaviors that they must master (Gazda, 1971). They need to develop a sense of belongingness and worth (Dinkmeyer, 1968), and an understanding of “cause and effect” in social interaction (Ojemann, 1964). The learning disabled (LD) student is no different from other students in these areas; in fact, often the LD youngster has a greater deficit in these social and behavioral areas because of his/her learning problems. It has been my experience that often the LD youngster has had a long history of academic failure, peer ridicule, pressure to succeed, and low self-esteem. The mere fact of being placed in a special class can be socially and emotionally traumatic.

In spite of this situation, the affective needs of LD youngsters are often over- looked. There is much pressure on the LD teacher to bring the youngster to “grade level” academically. The innovative methods of diagnostic-prescriptive teaching, individualized academic curriculum, and establishing instructional behavioral objectives leave little time to work on affective concerns. In this age of “account- ability,” teachers are challenged to achieve measurable academic gains for their students. Furthermore, the behavioral orientation in many LD classes does not lend itself to facilitation of the teacher’s relationship with individual youngsters, nor does it facilitate relationships between youngsters. If affective work is at- tempted, it is often when there is “spare time” in the schedule; it is rarely an in- tegral part of the curriculum.

A model of a process group conducted with elementary learning disabled students is advocated. It is felt that the school psychologist should take an active role in the social and emotional development of learning disabled students, since he/she often is the person responsible for placing a youngster in a learning disability class and often is also the consultant to that class. Therefore, he/she is in an unique and positive position to lead a process group. Although research is still incomplete regarding the efficacy of process groups, there is much evidence accumulating that they produce positive change and growth (Gazda & Larsen, 1968).

GOALS FOR THE GROUP Specific goals for the LD process group have been identified which are im-

portant t o work towards; also, they are necessary in order to give meaning and direction. These goals are:

~

Requests for reprints should be sent to Gary W. Ledebur, Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit, 2370 Main St., Schnecksville, PA 18078.

62

The School Psychologist 63

Increased self-understanding and self-acceptance Self-understanding and self-acceptance are worthwhile ends in themselves.

In addition, they are necessary to help the LD youngster understand his unique situation and gain confidence in order to benefit from the academic program. Increased social understanding and social relatedness

Although the LD student’s problems are primarily of an academic-learning nature, there are frequently important secondary social problems. Teasing by others and the inability to succeed academically as well as his peers are two stresses in coping with which the LD youngster needs help. Often, these stresses result in acting-out behavior such as fighting or name-calling ; with other LD youngsters, severe social withdrawal can occur. Developing a sense of social relatedness and understanding is important for all children and especially crucial for those with learning disabilities. Developing personal values and a n understanding of the valuing process

This goal, which transcends the cognitive/aff ective dichotomy, is often over- looked. LD youngsters may be confused or apathetic about what is really important to them. Although the LD youngster often has conflicts regarding those values specific to education, there are numerous other areas where value conflicts can occur. Through the process group, a youngster should be encouraged to explore these various areas, as well as to develop personal values and an understanding of the values of others. Improved cognitive skills

Problem-solving is a skill in which LD youngsters are often proficient. Al- though they have disabilities that interfere with reading, writing, and/or computa- tion, they have a t least average intellectual ability. They may never be strong in reading, writing, and/or computation; however, they can improve their general problem-solving skills, which will be a valuable asset and help them compensate for their deficiencies.

In the verbal interaction of the group, language skills are improved by speaking (encoding), as well as listening (decoding), and there is a relationship between one’s language skills and reading achievement. Axline (1949J found that through the group process a youngster’s reading achievement can be increased. Further understanding of the student’s learning disability

Since the diagnosis of a learning disability is often a difficult task, the process group may have an additional role; i.e., may provide the school psychologist with more information, perhaps not obtainable in any other way, about the specific nature and/or concomitant problems of the youngster’s disability. For example, one boy was having difficulty mastering phonic skills in reading. After a trusting relationship had been established within the group, he confided that his parents tried to teach him %ounds” and scolded him if he failed to learn them adequately. His anxious recounting of this situation strongly indicated that there was much stress which was interfering with his learning. After the psychologist obtained his permis- sion and discussed this concern with his parents, they changed their interaction with him regarding their tutoring; and his attitude toward reading and even his achievement have improved. Thus, the process group can provide the opportunity to really know these students and better identify their specific learning problems.

64 Psychology in the Schools, January, 1977, Vol . 14, No. 1

THE PROCESS OF THE GROUP It is very important that a facilitative environment be created in order that

positive gains can be made within the group. It is the responsibility of the leader to establish this environment; without this, very little growth will be observable within the group. Much research has developed indicating how such a facilitative environment can be created. The strength of the facilitative base is directly related to the levels of empathy, congruence, and positive regard provided by the leader (Carkhuff, 1969; Gaada, 1971). In the LD group, the facilitative environment seems to be growth-producing in itself. It also creates mutual trust among the members, which enables more freedom of interaction and risk-taking behavior. If they do not trust the group, young LD children will hesitate to talk about specific problems (e.g., “I don’t know why they call me a retard.”). Also, through the development of the facilitative base the leader and members get to really know each other. The building of this base is not something that is completed quickly. It is an ongoing process that must pervade all group meetings.

It is natural to tell a youngster he should not feel sad about being placed in a special class; never- theless, the leader should never do so, but should accept and reflect back to the youngster the despondency he feels. In addition, positive regard should be com- municated by telling the youngster that he is appreciated for himself and that his contributions to the group are beneficial. It is recommended that school psy- chologists who are not trained in the development of the core conditions seek out such training.

It is more difficult for the leader to provide the facilitative conditions with LD youngsters than it is with either adults or nonLD youngsters. Much patience and creativity are needed. The leader must tolerate many behaviors of these young- sters that would not occur with other populations. LD children are often hyper- kinetic; they will be more likely to move around, be more active, and not be able to attend well. This means that the leader often must provide specific and changing activities. Initially choosing a toy or game can facilitate interaction; however, it is recommended that this not be made a regular event, or the group could easily miss its directed aims.

It has been my practice to allow the youngsters to raise topics of discussion. At times, the topics raised may appear to the leader to be irrelevant, but many of them have a personal and affective quality that can be used by the leader to develop the core facilitative conditions. The content of the interaction, at least initially, is not as important as the process that develops.

After the facilitative base is strengthened, the leader can then move the group to more specific goals. At this time, the leader should introduce topics, if the group members are not able to raise relevant subjects for discussion. The topics introduced by the leader should pertain to the stated goals of the group. Specific problems common to LD youngsters in general, e.g., special class placement, being teased, feeling dumb, etc., can be introduced. It is important for the leader not to attempt to “solve” these problems; they are not solvable. Nevertheless, through the group interaction, these youngsters will be free to discuss their concerns. The leader’s empathic responses help the LD youngster to understand his feelings, and thus the threat they pose will be diminished. Also, constructive strategies and other ways of dealing with them can be suggested by the leader or other group members.

Empathic responses to children can be difficult for adults.

The XchooE Psychologist 65

For more specific behavioral problems that individual youngsters may have, such as fighting or acting silly, often “confrontation” can be helpful. For example, one youngster, David, was frequently involved in altercations with other youngsters on the playground. After a trusting relationship was established, it was possible to negatively confront David with his behavior. The group members were also able to communicate to David that he was responsible for starting many fights. This negative confrontation within the group had much more meaning to David than all the lectures on fighting he had received from parents, teachers, and the principal. In addition to negative confrontation, positive confrontation can be utilized. Specifically, one youngster, Marlc, acted “silly” because he felt unable to compete with his peers in the classroom. He believed that he was not very pro- ficient at some academic skills, specifically arithmetic and spelling. The leader and other members of the group positively confronted him with his strengths, and this positive confrontation was reinforced during subsequent meetings. Mark appeared to show positive gains as a result of this confrontation, and his inap- propriate behavior, both within the group and in the classroom, diminished.

Other activities, discussion topics, or group interactions may be introduced after establishing the facilitative environment. There are numerous ideas and pro- gram materials available for group interactions. Specifically, the materials by Ojemann (1964) are helpful in working with learning disabled youngsters. The Ojemann materials were developed on the premise that an understanding of cause and effect is necessary for positive interpersonal relations. The LD youngster, with average or above intelligence, often responds well to these materials, which are uniquely relevant to the LD process group. In addition, the materials of Dink- meyer (1973) and Simon, et al., (1972) can be adapted to the group goals. Never- theless, it is important for the school psychologist not to depend totally upon these materials, as the specific problems and concerns of LD youngsters often transcend their scope.

PROCEDURES IN STARTING THE GROUP Most LD classes consist of from 5 to 15 youngsters of various ages. Although

the students are primarily boys, a t times there will be several girls in the class. It may be possible to utilize the entire class as a process group; however, if the class has more than 7 students and is heterogeneous in regard to age or verbal skills, it is recommended that the class be divided into subgroups.

Group work with LD students is more difficult than with nonLD students of the same age. They are frequently more hyperactive and have poor concen- tration and attention. Group size and length of sessions must be kept less than for groups of normal youngsters. It is felt that the ideal group size is 5 students, but if the students are older and exhibit minimal hyperactive behavior, group size can be increased. Minimum group size should be 4; less than 4 youngsters does not permit sufficient group interaction and may place excessive demands for partici- pation on the individual student. In addition to smaller groups, LD youngsters, because of their unique problems, need a shorter meeting period. For young (less than 9 years), or very hyperactive children, the duration of each session should not exceed 30 minutes. Their concentration and ability to attend is limited. For older youngsters (9 to 12 years), group sessions can be lengthened to 45 minutes.

66 Psychology in the Schools, January, 1977, Vol. 14, N o . 1.

If the entire class is not utilized as a process group, it is recommended that the group meeting take place outside the classroom. Because L D students are often easily distracted, the meeting room should be a small, quiet place. Sitting on the floor in a circle enables all the members to view each other easily and tends to facilitate group interaction.

Prior to any meeting of the group, the leader should meet with each student individually. This will help allay much initial anxiety and give an opportunity for the leader and member to begin to know each other. During this meeting, the youngster should be “invited” to attend the group, and the purpose and pro- cedures should be explained to him or her. If the youngster appears to be very anxious or fearful, more than one individual session may be needed prior t o the entrance of that youngster into the group.

It is also helpful.for the leader to meet with each student’s parents in order to explain to them the purpose of the group and what will occur during the sessions. It is recommended that the leader obtain written permission from the parents.

The first group meeting is crucial. It is important that during the first session the purpose of the group be reexplained and the groundwork for the meetings be presented. The ground rules that I use are:

1. Listening is important; each member must listen when another is talking.

2. Hitting, poking, tickling, and fighting are not allowed.

The first rule is important because most youngsters have not learned how to listen. Unless reminded of this, they will frequently engage in multiple, simultan- eous conversations or interrupt each other. Rule number 2 is also important, for without it, the group process can easily degenerate into “rough housing.” Simply reminding the youngsters of the rules is usually sufficient to handle problems that develop. Nevertheless, if order does break down and cannot be reestablished, it is recommended that the meeting be cancelled and the situation discussed a t the next session.

Group work for both elementary school children and learning disability classes is relatively new in public education. I have conducted such groups for three years and have found them to be successful. It is my opinion that the LD process group, led by the school psychologist, can be effectively utilized for the overall benefit of learning disabled youngsters.

REFERENCES

Do not interrupt unless i t is urgent!

AXLINE, V. M. Childhood

C.mKnum, R. Helping human relations: A primer for lay and professional helpers, Volume II. New

DINKMEYER, D. C. Guidance and counseling i n the elementary school. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

DINKMEYER, D. C. Developing understanding of others (DUSO). Circle Pines, Minnesota: American

GAZDA, G. M. Group counseling: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971. GAZDA, G . M. & LARSEN, M. J. A comprehensive ap roach of group and multiple counseling re-

OJEMANN, R. H. Developing a program for education in human behavior. Iowa City, Iowa: State

SIMON, S. B., How*::, L. W., & KIRSCHENBAUM, H. Values clarijicalion: A handbook of practical strate-

Play therapy: A way of understanding and helping reading problems. Education, 1949, 26, 156-160.

York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969.

& Winston, 1968.

Guidance Services, 1973.

search. journal of Research and Development i n $ducation, 1968, 1, 57-132.

University of Iowa, 1964.

gies for teachers and students. New York: Hart, 1972.