學習障碍 槪念定義의 妥當性과 再槪念化의 必要性

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육학연구 / 31권 / 1호
ㆍ저자명 : 白旭鉉

목차

요약
Ⅰ. 問題의 提起
Ⅱ. 學習障碍 槪念定義
Ⅲ. 學習障碍 槪念定義의 妥當性
Ⅳ. 結論
참고문헌
Abstract

한국어 초록

본 연구는 현재 일반적으로 통용되고 있는 학습장애 개념정의가 정말로 妥當한지 관련문헌을 통하여 조사하였다. 먼저, 학습장애 개념내지 정의의 變遷過程을 역사적으로 고찰하여 그것이 어떻게 수정되어 왔는지 조사하였다. 그 다음, Strauss와 Werner의 學習障碍 槪念模型에 근거하여 다양한 학습장애 정의들에서 공통적으로 발견할 수 있는 5가지 定義 構成要素의 타당성을 경험적 연구결과에 비추어 논의하였다. 그 결과, 현재 일반적으로 규정되어 있는 학습장애 개념정의는 학습장애를 독립된 학문영역으로 발전시키기에는 타당성이 缺如되어 있다고 볼 수 있으며, 따라서 기존의 학습장애 개념정의의 틀에서 탈피하여 다양한 개념과 접근법이 모두 수용되는 새로운 관점에서 학습장애를 재개념화하고 타당화하는 노력이 필요하다.

영어 초록

This study was to investigate the validity of the definition of Learning Disabilities(LD) concept based on the research data thus far obtaind, and present necessity of reconceptualization. To review the evolution of LD definition, it has been the 'problem' almost from the outset and is now. That is, LD field has been plagued by definitional problems that have seriously undermined progress in the field. The primary conclusion to be drawn about LD definitions is that the more they change the more they stay the same.
The history of the LD field reveals that the seminal work of Strauss and Werner evolved into the present-day LD field through the efforts of their colleagues and students who incorporated the paradigmatic assumptions of Strauss and Werner into basic conceptualizations about the nature and definition of LD. The Strauss and Werner 'paradigm' includes (in varying degrees) the following postulates: (a) LD fits a medical model(implying something wrong with the child), (b) LD is associated with (or caused by) neurological dysfunction, (c) LD academic problems are related to process disturbance, most notably in perceptual-motor functioning, (d) LD is associated with academic failure as defined by discrepancy notions, and (e) LD cannot be due primarily to other handicapping conditions.
Evaluation of the primary definitional components(postulates) of LD derived from the 'paradigm' developed Strauss and Werner finds that each is problematic and cannot be accepted unequivocally. Subsequent research has failed to demonstrate the manifest validity of the paradigmatic assumption found in LD definitions. Consequently, the Strauss and Werner 'paradigm' cannot be viewed as a universial framework for scientific development in LD. THe problematic nature of the LD definitional components suggests that they represent anomalis. But LD field has not experienced a paradigm shift that would explain the anomalies and provide new theoretical perspectives.
Therefore, a necessary step in resolving the problem of definition is to cease efforts at modifying available definitions. The LD field must be understood as really being in a preparadigmatic period where all conceptualizations are approprite and justified for defining LD. Through constructive, cumulative, and cooperative endeavors, LD can then be validly defined.

참고 자료

없음