Moderate Learning Difficulties:
the term, Lesson Study and
pedagogic implications
Rationale for study
- pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD) represent the
largest proportion of those identified as having special
educational needs in the school system,
Neglected as a focus for educational initiatives.
- 25% of all pupils identified as having SEN at school action plus
or with Statements in ordinary and special schools
Neglect attributed to several factors.
– come disproportionately from families who experience socioeconomic disadvantage
– no well established advocacy or voluntary group dedicated to
the interests of these pupils
– historic uncertainty about pupils with MLD : between those with
severe intellectual disabilities and ‘normal’ pupils who are lower
attaining
– =
Moderate learning difficulties:
1. Not low attainment – not severe intellectual disability
2. Traditionally defined in IQ terms : 50/55-70 range
3. Subject to much critique – ethnic / cultural bias/ use
of IQ; intelligence tests
4. Terminology changes/sensitivity: Mental deficiency,
Educational imbeciles, Feeble minded, Mild
/moderate educational subnormal, Educational
mentally retarded, Mild/moderate intellectual
disability
5. Terms and meaning vary internationally
6. Socially constructed term – serving dominant interests
7. Raises questions about : what is special education,
who needs it?
8. ‘Acid test’ of inclusion policies.
Definition of MLD: DfES, 2003
Pupils with moderate learning difficulties will have
attainments significantly below expected levels in most
areas of the curriculum, despite appropriate
interventions. Their needs will not be able to be
met by normal differentiation and the flexibilities of the
National Curriculum.
They should only be recorded as MLD if additional
educational provision is being made to help them to
access the curriculum.
Pupils with moderate learning difficulties have much
greater difficulty than their peers in acquiring basic
literacy and numeracy skills and in understanding
concepts. They may also have associated speech and
language delay, low self-esteem, low levels of
concentration and under-developed social skills.”
MLD definition and identification
Area
Child functioning
Significant low attainment in
most areas of curriculum
Sub-area
Literacy
numeracy
Other e.g. science
Much greater difficulty in
understanding concepts
Verbal and non-verbal reasoning:
verbal concepts
Speech and language delay
Age level dependent
Low self esteem
Low level of concentration
Under-developed social skills
Environmental factors
School attendance
Additional teaching programmes
MLD definition and identification: Child functioning
Significant low
Numeracy / literacy
attainment in most areas
of curriculum
Options
1
Centile cut off for standardised test
(e.g. below 5th centile)
2
Teacher assessed level
(e.g. defined level below expected level (varies
according to age)
3
SAT level (test results) e.g. defined level below
expected level (varies according to age)
Other e.g. science
Much greater difficulty in Verbal and nonunderstanding concepts verbal reasoning:
verbal concepts
Similar options as above
1
Teacher assessment
(year/class group referenced e.g. lowest 1-2 )
2
Cognitive ability tests (On CAT, WISC, BAS
e.g. lowest 2-5 centile)
3
Dynamic assessment (teaching assessment;
teacher assessment based on degree of gain
in response to assistance)
Table 1: Crowther et al. (2001) system for defining MLD
Associated with
No other
significant
difficulties
Significant
emotional and
behavioural
difficulties
Significant
sensory/medical
difficulties
Milder learning
difficulties
More severe
learning
difficulties
Concept map of themes in LEA definitions’ of MLD term
not use
term
low
cognitive
ability
associated
difficulties
not SLD nor
SpLD
MLD
specify
cut-off
low
attainment
and ability
low
attainment
cross
curriculum
DCSF (2010)
% of pupils with Statements/SA+ in each areas of
SEN achieving level 4+ in Eng and Maths
%
numbers
Specific LD
22.7
9,042
Moderate LD
11.1
19,480
Beh, Emot Soc D
36.2
12,116
Visual Impairment
52.5
652
3 prototypes (research on LA use) :
1. definitions in terms of low curriculum attainments (all /
a number), with cut-offs specified and with associated
areas of difficulties;
2. definitions in terms of low attainments AND cognitive
abilities, with cut-offs specified, distinguished from severe
and specific learning difficulties and with associated
areas of difficulties;
3. not use MLD term.
Phase 1 research shows:
- Pupils identified by secondary schools as having MLD fall
into 3 subgroups groups and illustrated (Ylonen and
Norwich 2011):
• Those with low attainment and low concept
understanding and reasoning (model 1)
• Those with low attainment only (model 2)
• Identified as MLD but not with low attainment nor concept
understanding/ reasoning (model 3).
These findings suggest that some pupils are identified as
having MLD inappropriately (group 3), while for others
‘conceptual understanding and reasoning’ are not used as
indicators of MLD.
BAS matrices and verbal similarities (reasoning)
T-scores (%)
Score of under 30 = in the lowest 2% of age group
Score between 31-40 = in the lowest 2-16% of age group
Score between 41-50 = 17-50%
Score of 51 and above = 50% + (above average)
BAS spelling and reading (literacy) standard
scores (%)
Scores below 70 = in the lowest 2% of age group
Scores between 70.5-85 = in the lowest 2-16%
Scores between 85.5 and 100 = 17-50%
Scores of 100.5 and above = 50% + (above average)
Is there a difference between MLD, low
attainment and specific learning
difficulties SpLD?
- depends on definition:
i. attainment only OR
ii. attainment AND cognitive ability
- MLD as general learning difficulty; SpLD as
specific difficulty
- categoric versus dimensional (continuum
position)
- dimensional with pragmatic cut offs
Specific – general learning difficulties
Uneven
attainments
Even
attainments
Specific
General
LD: MLD
LD
CUT
OFFS?
MLD
low attaining
average attaining
Range of attainments
high attaining
Why use the term MLD?
Is it a disability, like severe learning diffiuclties?
Or is it just very low attainment?
- Raises dilemma about differentiating this group
1.If do we identify MLD as an area of SEN / disability?
Risks – negative labelling, false identification as disability/SEN
2. If do we not identify it as difficulty / disability
but as part of the continuum of attainment?
Risks – overlook rights / needs of some vulnerable pupils,
lose additional resources
3 options for resolving dilemma:
1. Retain and specify MLD category as an area of
SEN
2. Abandon MLD as a SEN category: consider as very
low attainment provide in terms of compensatory
education / social inclusion framework.
3. Abandon MLD for majority, redefine new
tighter category of mild mixed difficulties for
minority.
What positive difference does this make for
teaching?
Is there a specific set of MLD relevant teaching
strategies?
- Little research; what written suggests no MLD specific
pedagogy teaching (Fletcher-Campbell, 2004)
- various teaching approaches relevant to MLD but
also relevant to pupils with lower attainment
Continua of pedagogic strategies:
- appropriate teaching as
- intensification and more focussed extension
- of general teaching approaches
(Lewis and Norwich, 2004)
Model of teaching strategies
(from phase 1 research)
• Broad pedagogic approach:
– Pedagogic methods/assumptions
– Activity based learning
– Assessment for learning
• Input (multi-modal/sensory approaches)
• Cognitive demand:
– Level/style (differentiation)
– Memory/consolidation
• Motivational approaches
• Learning relationships
– Grouping and peer support
– Adult-pupil communication
• Working with additional adults
Pedagogic approaches
Specialist/SEN
Generic adapted/
Low attaining to
above average
Is there a specialist pedagogy for MLD?
Generic
intensified /
SEN
Generic adapted/
Low attaining to
above average
Evaluation of phase 1 Lesson Study
Processes: more than 90% of teachers agreed with
mostly/definitely
• Novelty and practical relevance of LS makes you interested in
lesson development for pupils with MLD
• wider awareness of LS process enhances confidence in
teaching pupils with MLD
• LS provides micro-focus on learning of 1-2 students to enable
greater depth of analysis
• participating teachers feel less threatened to scrutinise their
teaching by focusing on pupil learning rather than evaluating
teaching.
• LS enables participating teachers to think about themselves
as innovators in their schools.
Evaluation of phase 1 Lesson Study
Outcomes: more than 90% of teachers agreed with
mostly/definitely
• more theoretical and practical knowledge about LS
• more understanding about nature and complexity of
the learning needs of pupils with MLD.
• increased capability to plan and differentiate in your
teaching of pupils with MLD
• more confidence to try out novel teaching
approaches in lessons
• LS process has improved the quality of planning of
your teaching (not just how to refine specific lesson.)
Lesson Study methodology components:
-developing ground rules for working in joint research
mode,
• using case pupils (small number of pupils around whom
the development is focussed),
• identifying what to learn and why; the research focus,
• drawing on what has been learned already about this
focus,
• joint planning,
• joint observation (data capture)
• analysing and recording of what has been learned from
case pupils and by researchers,
• capturing and distilling practice / data (through using
videos, stills and audios)
• finding ways of helping others to learn from what has been
learned (innovated, refined, modified),
•creating an artefact to communicate this (e.g. powerpoint,
video, coaching guide, etc.) and using it.
What do we know about focus on MLD that is relevant to
Lesson Study developments?
Studies indicate :
1. weaker intellectual abilities; reasoning, problem solving,
thinking skills etc.
2. weaker working memory: phonological, spatial,
executive control
3. issues about self esteem, motivation and independent
learning
Way forward: adopt research based ideas and practices to
inform the review and planning aspects of Lesson Study
- Thinking skills
- Motivation strategies
- Working memory supports
1. Thinking skills:
National Curriculum thinking skills:
1. Information processing, e.g. sort and classify
2. Reasoning e.g. draw inferences and make
deductions
3. Enquiry, e.g. ask relevant questions
4. Creative thinking, e.g. generate and extend idea
5. Evaluation, e.g. judge the value of what they
read, hear and do
2. Motivation strategies
ARCS model (Keller)
Design guidelines for developing effective
motivational strategies
Attention
Relevance
Confidence
Satisfaction
ARCS model: expectancy – value model
ATTENTION
- perceptual arousal
- inquiry arousal
- variability /novelty
RELEVANCE
- goal orientation
- motive matching
- learning requirements
- success opportunities
- personal responsibility
- intrinsic reinforcement
- extrinsic rewards
- equity
CONFIDENCE
SATISFACTION
Motivational observation/interviewing schedule:
Based on areas arising from Motivation Survey based on
ARCS
- Areas to be used for classroom observation and
interview of pupils about their motivation
- focus on individual and/or group
-
on project website
Working memory :
Working Memory and Learning: A Practical Guide
for Teachers
Gathercole and Alloway Sage.
Working memory questionnaire for teachers
Strategies:
1. Recognise working memory failures
2. Evaluate the working demands of learning
activities
3. Reduce working memory loads if necessary
4. Frequently repeat important information
5. Encourage the use of memory aids
Working memory guide on MLD LS website under
resources
Using these research informed approach in
your Lesson Study in your subject
• What opportunities are there in the lesson
that you are focusing on in Lesson Study to
integrate teaching that promotes
• Motivation strategies?
• Thinking skills?
• Monitor and use working memory strategies?
Slide 3.7
30