Book Analysis 1
Running Head: Book Analysis
Book AnalysisThe Learning Mystique by Gerald Coles
Ashley Barker
University of Washington- Tacoma
Book Analysis 2
Abstract
In his book, The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at :Learning Disabilities” (1987), Gerald Coles
provides a historical perspective on the origin of learning disabilities, provides researcher on flaws on
how learning disabilities were diagnosed and their etiology, and his perspective on how society has
chosen to address the issue of learning disabilities. In my analysis of Cole’s work, I relate is views with
the learning philosophies of social reformation, deschooling, and pragmatism. I further examine Cole’s
personal beliefs through his eyes and the lens of his peers.
Book Analysis 3
Outline of the Book Argument
In the beginning chapters, Cole outlines the history of disability starting with “Hinshelwood’s
Legacy.” This was the study of one of the first know cases of disability as identified by a teacher in
Glasgow, Scotland. The young man being studied was one of two brothers- both who were students of
the same schoolmaster. The teacher shared his concern over the learning difficulty experienced by one
of the brothers with a medical doctor who labeled the problem “congenital word-blindness” diagnosed
as a genetic defect (1987, p. 4). The medical doctor in this case was a former student of James
Hinshelwood, a researcher who had been studying congenital word-blindness. After the student’s label
and treatment (which consisted of excluding read aloud and have “short, frequent reading lessons”) his
progress was deemed satisfactory, it was confirmed that the problem was a brain defect and unrelated
to other factors such as family and school interactions. With Hinshelwood setting the stage for reading
disability research using this particular case, Cole says, “the learning-disabilities field certainly got off to
a shaky start” ( (1987, p. 8).
After describing the classification and research of students with learning disabilities at the time
of his book, Cole concludes that “current evidence of a causal intrinsic neurological dysfunction is no
more convincing that that produced in Hinshelwood’s day” (1987, p. 14). Cole describes similar findings
related to diagnosing learning disabilities using current technology and the prescription of drugs to treat
the disorders as of the time of his book in 1987.
Similarly family and genetic theories have, according to Coles, provided very little evidence of a
neurological explanation of learning disabilities. In response, Cole introduces the “Theory of
Interactivity” which is his answer to explain how learning disabilities are fostered through a variety of
sources. Coles says, “Differences in cognitive development are not a larger social conspiracy. Rather,
Book Analysis 4
they arise from the interactivity among individuals, family, school, and the wider social order” (1987, p.
148).
Parts of the players in Cole’s Interactivity Theory are schools and their responses to students
who are diagnosed learning disabled. Cole explains that, “Most learning disabled children then have
different brains, but some evidence- itself far from conclusive suggests that a small number of them
have dysfunctional brains. The point is that both are created through social relationships and activity”
(1987, p. 186).
Therefore, based on Coles work, there appears to be no empirical evidence that the term
“learning disabled” related to a brain dysfunction. Cole deems learning disabilities a “social philosophy”
based on “educational inequity” ( (1987, p. 212). He calls each of us responsible; educators, our
families, and society, for the labeling of our children and their underachievement in schools. In fact, he
takes the blame off the child as “defective” and says if we continue to not address underachievement in
our schools, the “educational ‘poor’ will be with us forever” (1987, p. 212).
Book topic related to the philosophies/themes
Like Mr. Cole, there are others who have paved the way for educational forward thinking. These
people have not always been well liked or their ideas easily accepted but they, like Mr. Cole, have
allowed us to think critically about the responsibility public education has taken on.
First, I relate Mr. Cole’s idea of diagnosing disability to what we know about how education ran
in its early beginnings. The lack of evidence that learning disabilities were related to brain dysfunction
and the unfounded rationale for prescribing medications and therapies is much like the testing and
sorting machine model described in Joel Spring’s book, American Education (2010, p. 34).
Book Analysis 5
Like Mr. Cole’s stance that testing for learning disabilities creates educational inequity, Mr.
Spring points out that “Intelligence tests thus justified a hierarchical social structure based on measured
intelligence” (2010, p. 35). Later, people found that intelligence tests had more to do with biases of
specific race and classes of people; above assigning an appropriate intelligence level and subsequently
the educational and job qualifications that accompany it.
Also, Mr. Cole may see some of his views of the interconnectivity theory with the nature versus
argument that Mr. Spring addresses in the same section as IQ testing. There are parts of Mr. Cole’s
philosophy that coincides with what Spring says relates to a potential difference in intelligence. He
states, “Those who see nurture as more important argue that differences in measured intelligence
between social and racial groups primarily reflect differences in social conditions. The poor grow up in
surroundings limited in intellectual training: an absence of books and magazines in the home; poor
housing, diet, and medical care; and lack of peer-group interest in learning all might account for their
poor performance on intelligence tests” (2010, p. 36).
In alignment with these ideas, Ivan Illich, author of Deschooling Society (1987), felt that school
limits its instruction for those who qualify. He says, “ It [school] is not liberating or educational because
school reserves its instruction to those whose every step in learning fits previously approved measures
of social control” (1970, p. 11).
In order to remedy this problem, Cole calls to society to use a “pragmatic “approach in dealing
with disabilities in response to our failures in addressing and fixing this problem. He defines using
pragmatism in this manner as “Improving referral and decision making, eliminating invalid tests in
diagnosis, identifying children’s cognitive abilities, distinguishing their unique characteristic, and
determining the instruction best for them are worth implementing, or trying to implement. So too,
Book Analysis 6
other pragmatic changes would begin to move schools to a more enlightened understanding and better
instruction of children” (1987, p. 209).
Similarly, in his work, John Dewey suggests that much can be gained by simply observing and
spending time with a child. As Cole’s points out, there must be a better way to determine what students
need than our current model of testing. Dewey says that through careful observation of a child’s
interest and adult can see the life and profession that awaits the child (1897, p. 11).
Ideology of the author
Essentially, Cole is asking that we take a look at where we have been (Hinshelwood) and try
something new (be pragmatic) because, in essence, our current practices in diagnosing and treating
students with disabilities has been ineffective in increasing their achievement. He points his finger at
the medical field, teachers, and families to work together to help our children; not the child as the one
who is defective. Ultimately, he is looking “to help a few more children and offer a bit more satisfaction
to those who provide the help.” He goes on to say, “May be all that the future holds” if we do not take a
more engaged, pragmatic approach (1987, p. 212).
Peer Review Summary
In response to Gerald Coles, Learning Mystique, two authors, Byron Rourke and Scott Sigmon,
have very different opinions.
In his peer review, “Cole’s Learning Mystique: The Good, The Bad, and The Irrelevant”, Mr.
Rourke (1989) describes himself as, “A card-carrying neuropsychologist interested in studying brain
behavior relationships in humans, especially children with learning disabilities” (1989, p. 276). He
appears to take offense to Gerald Cole’s view that science has provided a disservice to children by
basing their labels on limited research. Rourke continues by arguing that as a neuropsychologist, he
Book Analysis 7
does consider the “other factors” that Coles describes; such as, socio-emotional factors, personalities,
and adaptive qualities in their research of learning disabilities (1989, p. 276). It is important to note,
however, that Mr. Rourke read excerpts of The Learning Mystique; not the entire book. In a subtle way,
actually, Rourke and Coles at one point actually agree that by making sweeping generalizations about
the classification of learning disabilities actually could harm future research that may help our children.
In agreement with this statement, Scott Sigmon (another educational author) calls for additional
research and study of helping our students who struggle with learning. In his review “Reactions to
Excerpts from The Learning Mystique: A Rational Appeal for Change”, Mr. Sigmon says, “Before we
classify a child as learning disabled under the assumption that there is within such student a
neurological dysfunction, we must first explore other possibilities such as motivation, knowledge of
learning strategies, and previous amount as well as quality of instruction” (1989, p. 300).
Regardless of either author’s opinion of Gerald Cole’s Learning Mystique both agree, essentially
with Cole’s, that there are many factors related to learning disabilities and more work needs to be done
in the field of learning disabilities.
Book Analysis 8
References
Coles, G. (1987). Learning Mystique. New York: Ballantine Books.
Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal , LIV (3), 77-80.
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from preservenet:
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html
Rourke, B. P. (1989). Cole's Learning Mystique: The Good, The Bad, and The Irrelevant. Journal of
Learning Disabilities , 22 (5), 274-277.
Sigmon, S. B. (1989). Reactions to Excerpts from The Learning Mystique: A Rational Appeal for Change.
Journal of Learning Disabilities , 22 (5), 299-327.
Spring, J. (2010). American Education. New York: McGraw Hill.