The Development and Validation

of an Individualized

Perceptual Skills Curriculum

 

Jerome Rosner

 

Learning Research and Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

 

1972

 

 

The research reported herein was supported by the Ford Foundation and the Learning Research and Development Center supported in part as a research and development center by funds from the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Ford Foundation or of the Office of Education and no official endorsement should be inferred.

 

Acknowledgement

 

Although this paper shows only one author, it represents the efforts of the total staff of the Perceptual Skills Curriculum Project as well as assistance from teachers and LRDC colleagues, too numerous to list.

 

The following have worked on this Project, at one time or another, during the past three years:

 

Joanne Gass; Dorothy Hurst; Joan Goodnight; Sheila Levine; Sharyn Nassau; Dorothea Simon; Susan Tutko; Rebecca Wiegers

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

Developers of instructional programs must make certain assump­tions about the entering abilities of the student populations for whom their programs are intended. A significant proportion of such assumptions are related to the students' basic information processing skills. For example, every first-grade instructional program for unimpaired, or so-called "normal, children- -children whose chronological and mental ages approxi­mate 6 years; whose visual and hearing acuities are within normal ranges; who can speak intelligibly and manipulate a pencil with some control- -assumes that the students already know, or will readily learn, the basic visu~ and acoustical communication codes used in that program. Indi­vidual differences in students' cognitive abilities are anticipated; indeed, provisions may be built into the instructional program to accommodate these differences. On the other hand, individual differences in the basic processes of organizing the sensory data--the media from which meaning­ful visual and acoustical information is constructed--are usually of less concern. The inference is that, if the children meet the criteria of 'un­impaired," they will possess these basic aptitudes.

 

Unfortunately, such assumptions are false. During the past decade, for example, much attention has been given to two separate groups of chil­dren who though 'unimpaired," enter first grade unprepared to deal with symbols in a reliable and efficient manner; one group has been categorized as "learning disabled"; the other as "culturally disadvantaged.

 

Children with learning disabilities have been the concern of many investigators (see, for example, Kaluger & Kolson, 1969; Frierson & Barbe, 1967; McCarthy & McCarthy, 1969), including a special Task Force sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (Clements, 1966; Clements, 1969; Chalfont & Scheffelin, 1969). So far, however, there is little agreement as to cause, treatment, or even an appropriate descrip­tive name for this group. In addition to "learning disabled," they have been called perceptually handicapped, minimally brain damaged, children with cerebral dysfunction, neurologically impaired, and dyslexic. (For an extended list, see Clements, 1966.) What agreement there is centers on the identification of certain behavioral characteristics that tend to be common to the group, including indications of perceptual dysfunction. These children usually display all of the attributes of the "unimpaired, yet they do not profit from instruction in a normal fashion.

The second group, the "culturally disadvantaged," has also been the concern of a number of scientists (see, for example, Bereiter & Engelmann, 1966; Deutsch, 1965). These children, too, often show ~gns of perceptual dysfunction. The symbols of the classroom tend to cause them confusion. They, also, fail to profit from academic instruction in an expected manner.

 

There are, of course, basic differences between the two groups:  socioeconomic status, for one; and the causal factors that are usually related to their learning problem, for another. Middle-class children who show unpredicted achievement problems are labeled as learning disabled, and the speculation about cause centers around central nervous system dysfunction. On the other hand, children from families of lower socioeconomic status who perform poorly in the classroom are generally characterized as culturally disadvantaged; the inferred cause here is re­lated primarily to experiential factors. Either group, alone, is of suf­ficient size to cause concern; combined, their numbers are significant indeed.

 

Acknowledging this situation, and being committed to a concept of "adaptive education" (Glaser, 1971), the Learning Research and Develop­ment Center at the University of Pittsburgh initiated an effort in 1969--the Perceptual Skills Curriculum Project--to study the problem. Adaptive education, in this context, indicates recognition of the educator's respon­sibility to teach each child, and that academic failure, if it does occur, is to be attributed to the educator--not to the child. Therefore, such categorizations as "learning disabled," "culturally disadvantaged," or what have you, are really irrelevant, since they do not provide useful information about the individual child's educational needs; indeed, they tend to be useful only in that they can serve to absolve mainstream education from the responsibility of teaching such children.

 

The adaptive model provides the educator with two options, both of which may be applied: (1) attempt to define the optimum instructional program for each child; (2) provide the child with the training needed to acquire those skills that are prerequisite to successful performance in a specific instructional program.

 

Insofar as the first alternative is concerned, Glaser (1971) cor­rectly points out that "there are few alternative paths through elementary school." The first alternative, therefore, appears to be ruled out for that age group. Perhaps, then, yet a third option should be proposed. That is, if a child does not manifest the abilities prerequisite to achiev­ing the academic objectives of an elementary school curriculum, he should be placed in other, non-academic programs. This approach is commonly used with the mentally retarded. Maybe such an approach is justifiable for mentally retarded children; maybe it is not. One fact is clear, however. With children of normal intelligence, such an approach is utterly inappropriate. As Resnick (1972) points out:

 

· “…in urbanized and industrialized societies, there is probably no more important skill in gaining control over one's own life than reading and the associated skills of literacy. If this is so, then 'respecting' an individual's freedom to not learn to read actually means condemning him to a life of bondage.”

 

If we accept Resnick's statement--and it is very difficult to reject--we must rule Out, a priori, the third alternative. The Perceptual Skills Curriculum Project directed its attention to the second option: the modi­fication of prerequisite abilities through training.

 

PROJECT GOALS

 

 

The Project organized its task into four major goals:

 

1.  Identify those perceptual skills that appear to be directly re­lated to the basic classroom tasks of reading and arithmetic at the primary level.

 

2.   Given identified perceptual skills that do relate directly to classroom achievement, determine whether such skills can be trained effectively.

 

3.   Given trainable skills that are relevant to classroom achieve­ment, determine whether the effect of that training can be measured in the classroom behaviors. In other words, can transfer be effected?

 

4.  Given affirmative responses to all of the above, describe the training in a way that will allow it to be implemented and man­aged in the classroom of a public school, as a Perceptual Skills Curriculum,

 

During the past three years, a series of research and development studies has been conducted in an attempt to achieve these goals.  Basic mechanisms have not been explored; rather, a theme of empirical valida­tion of clinical procedures has been followed. To a large degree, the goals have been attained; it is the purpose of this paper to describe the methods employed, the information gathered, and the current status of the Project. Before doing so, however, it will be helpful to state the rationale on which this Project was based.

 

The rationale was originally stated in a preliminary document: a working paper description of the projected design of an individualized Perceptual Skills Curriculum (Rosner, 1969). The following statement is not identical to that original statement. Three years of research have effected certain changes in concepts. The basic premises, however, appear to have been supported and are retained.

 

RATIONALE

 

An Operational Definition of Perceptual Skills

 

Perceptual skills, in the context of this paper, refers to the be­havioral processes of analyzing and organizing raw sensory data--the "stuff" of communication--into meaningful symbolic units. Perceptual information, then, refers to the raw sensory data; symbolic information refers to specific units of perceptual data to which society has given a construct value. To make clear the distinction between perceptual and symbolic information, look at the two "messages" shown in Figure 1.

 

 

 

 

Figure 1

 

Both are constructed of "stuff"--visual sensations--in the form of ink traces on paper. Hence, both contain perceptual information.  Both also contain symbolic information, but our ability to gain access to that information is directly dependent upon our familiarity with the symbols and the lan­guages to which they belong, Both are, in fact, conveying the same in­formation; both refer to the same animal. One, of course, employs the symbols of the English language; the other uses Chinese symbols.  To the viewer who is familiar with the printed English language, the word "cat" is symbolic data, constructed from perceptual information. He will perceive it either as a word or as a series of letters, dependent upon his reading skills; once he has learned to discriminate the letters, he is not likely to perceive it simply as a pattern of interrelated lines.

 

On the other hand, if he is not also familiar with printed Chinese language symbols, he will treat those as perceptual data; an assortment of lines that create a graphic pattern. His unit of analysis will be the line rather than the symbol. The reader of English, when asked to copy the word "cat," will do just that--copy the series of letters that comprise the word "cat." When asked to copy the Chinese written representation of the word "cat," however, he will attempt to replicate a graphic pat­tern--he will draw interrelated lines rather than copy a visual represen­tation of a verbal construct.

 

The opposite situation will exist for the individual who is familiar with the written Chinese language but not the English. He will view the Chinese symbols for what they are--organized visual representations of spoken language. To him it is the English symbols that will be viewed as a graphic pattern--an organization of visual sensations that lack sym­bolic content.

 

A similar contrast can be made between perceptual and symbolic acoustical information. Consider the same two messages in spoken form: /cat/ and /mou/. When spoken to a user of the English language, the former is readily perceived as a meaningful single unit--a construc­tion of sequenced phonic events that conveys meaning. In contrast, the same sounds--"cat"--spoken to a user of the Chinese language who is not also familiar with spoken English, will be processed as perceptual information--as a pattern of sounds that lacks meaning and perhaps even precise organization.

 

How does this pertain to children's school performance, when only one symbol system is involved? The classroom typically provides an environment where meaningful information is generated, transmitted, received, and hopefully assimilated by the students and their teacher Figure 2 illustrates, in general, the basic behaviors assumed from "unimpaired" children who have been placed in such an environment. Information, in the form of visual and acoustical sensations, is generated and/or presented by the teacher. The child is expected to organize these into matching, meaningful constructs: visually, as pictures or alphanu­meric symbols; acoustically, as phonological constructs--that is, spoken words. Simply stated, even though he may not interpret the information correctly, the child is expected to "see"--perceive--what the teacher is showing him and "hear"--perceive--what the teacher is saying to him. In addition, if he is to meet the demands of a normal classroom, he is expected to display little difficulty in learning to produce visual and acoustical symbols that match those produced by his teacher and class­mates. That is, he is expected to be able to "write" that which he is shown, and "say" that which he is told.  Further, he must learn to repre­sent sounds graphically (hear and write), and to represent visual symbols acoustically (see and say). To do all this, the child must understand the construction of the visual and acoustical symbols. To understand their construction, he must be able to sort out and order the sensory elements--the “stuff”--from which they were formed. He must "perceive" first, if he is to "understand."

Figure 2

 

Not only must the student be able to perform all of these acts; he must be able to perform them easily, quickly, almost automatically. If the perceptual acts require great conscious effort, it follows that there will be less time and energy available for the interpretive aspects of the task. It is analogous to the conditions facing the student driver during his first driving lesson. He can see and hear well; his "equipment" is intact--it has been checked. He is sufficiently intelligent and adequately strong. Yet, during this first driving lesson, such an excessive amount of energy is devoted to survival--to controlling the automobile--that it is likely that his peripheral visual fields are effectively constricted; that he hears less keenly; that indeed he is operationally less "intelligent." He survives; he learns to drive.  The behaviors that demanded so much conscious effort at first now become almost automatic. He can see, hear, and think more effectively while driving. He has learned to use his equip­ment efficiently. He has linked together a series of relatively small, segmented behaviors into larger and fewer units. He need not devote attention to a myriad of separate independent actions. He can now function on a higher level of organization.

 

A child entering the first grade with inefficient perceptual skills is in much the same situation as the novice driver. He is expected to receive and produce the sensory codes of the classroom reliably and efficiently. To be able to perform the behaviors reliably is not enough; unless they are also performed efficiently--almost automatically--there will be little time or energy available to sustain at and master the inter­pretive aspects of the task; and yet it is to these interpretive acts that his teacher will look when assessing the child's achievement. It is not enough to be able to "do it if he tries." One doesn't have limitless re­sources--the child cannot always "try hard. " The result--probable failure, and worse yet, accusations that he was capable but just didn't try! This is particularly important in that the nature of the perceptual tasks presented to the first-grade child becomes more and more complex almost on a day-to-day basis. Hence, the child who "could do it if he tries" and did try to a sufficient degree during his first month in school, may very well find himself in an impossible situation in subsequent months, as the perceptual demands increase faster than does his ability to meet them.

 

For example, the child's first pre-primer and workbook pages present very simple formats; there are just a few large letters on a page. Why? Not because six-year-old children cannot see smaller print but, rather, because the publishers are acknowledging that the child is young and, hence, inexperienced in organizing complex visual presenta­tions. Very quickly, though, the situation changes. Presentations do become more complex; letter size shrinks, and more print appears on a page.  The perceptual tasks steadily become more demanding. It is assumed that the child's perceptual skills will be appropriate to this task as well as to the many other tasks that are presented daily in the class­room.

 

The assumption is correct for the majority of "unimpaired" chil­dren in the first grade; it is false, however, for a very significant num­ber of their classmates (Rosner, Richman, & Scott, 1969).  These are the ones who, in varying degrees, are less capable than expected in one or more of the performance skills described above: that is, in receiving and/or producing visual and/or acoustical sensations in a reliable and efficient manner. They can hear, see, speak, and manipulate a pencil, but their inefficiency in analyzing and organizing the sensations of the classroom into symbolic constructs prevents them from performing accurately, at the expected rate. They learn less of that which the teach­er is teaching -- they are underachievers. In one socioeconomic setting, they may be known as "learning disabilities"; in another, they are "cul­turally disadvantaged"; in either, they may be termed "lazy."

 

It is reasonable to assume that perceptual skills are developed, determined by both the child's biological integrity and his post-natal ex­periences. How do they develop? What experiences affect them? Two general principles of development apply. One, that all acquired motor functions proceed along a continuum from global to differentiated (Espen­schade & Eckert, 1967). Secondly, that over time, the child's ability to analyze and order visual and acoustical data is less dependent upon the tactile-kinesthetic supporting cues derived from these motor functions.

 

In regard to the first principle, consider the motor skills of the neonate.  In his first months of life he cannot voluntarily move one of his legs or arms without making compensatory, reflexive movements with the other parts of the body (Gesell, 1952).  By the time he enters first grade, if development has proceeded normally, he will be able to perform such discrete acts as balancing, hopping on one foot, and skip­ping, all of which indicate that he has reached a level on the Global à Differentiated scale where he has sorted out many of his body parts, and his motor system is capable of reorganizing them in a variety of dynamic patterns.

 

Similar changes can be observed in prehension and vocalization skills. The global, reflexive grasp of the neonate develops into the palmar grasp of the one-year-old. Upon entry into first grade, the child will probably have sorted out the basic components of his hands--his fingers--to the point where he now has available a splendidly designed tool for ex­ploring and manipulating his world in a very refined manner, as well as for controlling the movements of a writing tool efficiently--with two or three fingers of one hand (Gesell et al., 1940). In comparable fashion, the infant's undifferentiated cry is replaced by the toddler's initial vocabulary of a few words which, in turn, is expanded and refined into the appro­priately articulated speech patterns of the first-grader (Lenneberg, 1967).

 

All of these changes appear to be the outcomes of normal growth and development. The extent to which they have occurred is, in fact, part of that which is probed when one attempts to assess maturation. If a six-year-old is significantly awkward, if he grips a pencil with four or five fingers instead of two, if his speech patterns reveal traits more typical of the four-year-old, he is described as "immature"--at least in respect to these specific behaviors; behaviors that are critically related to the classroom tasks he will be expected to accomplish.

 

Insofar as the second developmental principle is concerned--that is, the child's relative dependency on related tactile-kinesthetic cues in analyzing visual and acoustical data, it has been noted that "Perception is influenced by motor activity from the outset, just as the latter is by the former (Piaget, 1960, p. 87)," and that conceiving of sensory processes as independent of motor processes is "fallacious." The one-year-old appears to analyze his visual world more reliably if he is able to con­firm that which he sees with some physical contact (White, 1970). As the child develops, he depends less upon overt tactile-kinesthetic infor­mation to confirm visual experiences. He acquires the ability to explore and organize with his eyes; the tactile-kinesthetic involvement becomes covert--it is internalized.  In a sense, his hands have "taught" his eyes; he now can function as though imaginary hands extended from his eyes. He perceives visual data as though he were overtly manipulating it. He can explore vaster expanses of space with his eyes than with his hands--and do it much more rapidly, efficiently--clearly an advantage insofar as classroom performance is concerned. In effect, sensory-MOTOR functions have become SENSORY-motor, as an outcome of normal devel­opment.  There is still a motor component in the behavior; it merely is less obvious (Zinchenko, 1970).

 

The motor component can and will become overt if the child-­or, indeed, the adult--encounters sufficient stress to necessitate analysis of the sensations at a lower level of organization. One need only watch the five-year-old learn to count objects. Initially, he learns to touch the objects with his fingers as he simultaneously states the numerals. In time, he "touches" with his eyes and commences to perceive groupings of objects--subsets within the whole. Overt hand involvement is not needed unless he is presented with an array of objects that is not ordered; where they are scattered randomly within a field. In such situations, overt hand use--self-produced cues such as pointing, and perhaps even touching--will probably be evidenced.

 

[CONT'D]