Recognizing and Supporting Gestalt Language Processors in Mathematics Education
I joined the National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) when I became a Resource Specialist Teacher, eager to find resources to support my new role. The initial excitement led me to commit to several years of membership, as the cost seemed reasonable. However, as I delved deeper, I began to regret my decision. The materials from their newsletters and journal are rife with ableism, the so-called ‘Science of Reading,’ and a heavy reliance on the medical model.
In a recent newsletter, they featured an article by another Resource Specialist Teacher focused on supporting students in maths. I was eager to see what the author had to say, hoping for valuable insights, but I was sorely disappointed. The article addresses the challenges faced by students with learning disabilities in learning algebra but neglects a crucial group within this population: Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs). As you know if you’ve been reading my articles, the education system often misidentifies GLPs as having a specific learning disability (SLD), resulting in inadequate support. In today’s article, I want to highlight how the author’s likely Analytical Language Processing (ALP) perspective leads to an underestimation of GLPs’ potential, especially in advanced mathematics. By overlooking the unique needs and strengths of GLPs, the author suggests a one-size-fits-all approach to education that ultimately does a disservice to these students.
Understanding GLPs and Their Challenges
As you hopefully know by now, we GLPs process language and information holistically, often grasping the “big picture” rather than the individual components. Unlike ALPs, who break down language and problems in a linear, step-by-step manner, GLPs tend to absorb and understand information in chunks, making it difficult for them to follow traditional, sequential teaching methods, particularly in subjects like mathematics.
In mathematics, GLPs may struggle with linear processing and step-by-step problem-solving, which are often integral to mastering algebra. This difficulty is not due to a lack of ability but rather a difference in cognitive processing. Unfortunately, these challenges are frequently misinterpreted by educators who are unfamiliar with GLP characteristics. As a result, GLPs are often incorrectly identified as having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) during Individualized Education Program (IEP) assessments. This misidentification leads to the implementation of inappropriate educational strategies that fail to address the unique needs of GLPs, further hindering their academic progress.
Recognising the distinction between GLPs and ALPs is crucial for providing the right support. By tailoring instruction to accommodate holistic processing, educators can help GLPs unlock their potential, particularly in advanced mathematics. Without this understanding, the education system continues to do a disservice to these students, limiting their opportunities for success.
A Critique of the Original Article
In the original article, the author describes several behaviors that are commonly associated with GLPs, but these behaviors are misinterpreted as deficits, rather than recognised as characteristics of a different processing style. For instance, the article mentions students struggling with multi-step problems and abstract reasoning—challenges that are typical for GLPs due to their holistic processing style. Instead of processing information sequentially, GLPs tend to focus on the overall concept, which can make it difficult for them to follow the linear steps often required in algebra. This challenge is not a sign of a learning disability but rather a difference in cognitive approach that the author fails to acknowledge.
Another example is the discussion of working memory and executive function challenges. The author interprets these difficulties as indicators of a learning disability, without considering that they might be manifestations of GLP traits. GLPs often have difficulty with tasks that require holding multiple pieces of information in a sequential order, which is a key aspect of working memory in traditional educational tasks. This can lead to an assumption that the student has a cognitive deficit, rather than recognising it as a difference in how they process and organize information.
The article also misses opportunities for providing effective support. The recommendations offered, such as extended time on tests or using manipulatives, while useful, may not address the root of the issue for GLPs. These strategies are often designed with ALP students in mind and do not consider the need for holistic, big-picture approaches that would better suit GLP learners. For example, instead of focusing solely on step-by-step instructions, a more effective strategy might involve presenting the entire problem visually or conceptually before breaking it down.
The author’s perspective, likely rooted in an ALP approach, leads to an undervaluation of GLP students’ potential, especially in higher mathematics. By not recognising the distinct needs of GLPs, the article inadvertently reinforces a one-dimensional approach to education that fails to tap into the unique strengths of these students. This oversight perpetuates a cycle of misidentification and ineffective support, ultimately limiting the academic and personal growth of GLP students.
Implications for Mathematics Education
The misidentification and lack of understanding of GLPs in mathematics education have significant consequences. When educators fail to recognise GLPs, they often employ ineffective strategies that do not align with these students’ needs. This leads to frustration, underachievement, and a potential decline in self-esteem, limiting GLPs’ academic and career opportunities. Over time, this lack of proper support can prevent GLPs from reaching their full potential, particularly in fields requiring strong mathematical skills.
To address this issue, there is a pressing need for more comprehensive professional development for teachers. Currently, the dominance of “BigEd” in the training space presents a significant barrier. “BigEd” often offers incomplete solutions that fail to deliver real results. When these half-measures predictably fall short, they simply return with another inadequate fix, perpetuating the cycle. This approach is driven by a focus on quarter-over-quarter growth of shareholder value rather than on genuinely solving educational challenges.
Independent consultants, like me, who could offer a more complete and effective picture, are often locked out of the training space due to “BigEd’s” influence. Teachers need access to training that truly equips them to recognise and support GLPs, utilising tailored instructional strategies such as visual learning aids, pattern recognition, and holistic problem-solving approaches. By empowering educators with the right tools and knowledge, we can ensure that GLPs receive the support they need to thrive in mathematics and beyond.
Proposed Solutions and Best Practices
To effectively identify GLPs in the classroom, I use a simple yet powerful tool: a list of nonsense words. When students attempt to pronounce these words, ALPs in high school maths typically apply phonics rules correctly, managing to pronounce the words even if they don’t make sense. In contrast, GLPs often struggle because they rely more on whole-word recognition, which fails with nonsense words.
For example, in an Algebra 3-4 course, you might use nonsense words such as:
Brimblate
Squinflor
Mavodrith
Plorix
Snithular
Glorebun
During the exercise, observe how students approach these words. ALPs will likely break down the words phonetically, while GLPs may hesitate, guess, or attempt to recognise the word as a whole, revealing their different processing style. This simple test can provide valuable insights, helping educators better understand and support GLPs.
Institutionally, incorporating similar assessments into IEP evaluations and general classroom practices can ensure that GLPs are accurately identified and receive the tailored support they need to excel in mathematics and other subjects.
Final thoughts …
The original article overlooks GLPs, leading to their misidentification and inadequate support, particularly in advanced mathematics. Today, I wanted to use it to highlight how failing to recognise GLPs results in missed opportunities to effectively teach and support these students. As educators, our role extends beyond teaching mathematical operations and random historical facts; we must help students understand how their brains work. If students are unaware of their GLP tendencies, they may wrongly believe they are disabled, delaying their understanding of how to harness their unique processing style. This underscores the importance of recognising diverse learning styles to ensure every student has the opportunity to succeed.