The Bagatelle Model is an alternative explanation for specific learning difficulties. It was first presented at the 8th Annual Disability Lecture at Cambridge University (Cooper, 2010). Underpinning it is the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) that argues that individuals are disabled by social, educational and physical barriers, not by intrinsic ‘deficits’ or ‘impairments’. The barriers may have historic roots, such as rote learning, but are as arbitrary in nature as requiring everyone to be right handed. Extending this analogy briefly, this can make it look like lefthanders have a ‘deficit’ right hand, but this is mistaking difference for deficit and imposing an arbitrary and abusive view on a minority. In short, such assumptions about what constitutes ‘normality’ create socially constructed barriers. It is time the wider world took responsibility to dismantle them in order to avoid creating unnecessary difficulties for learning, work, and social interaction.
The Bagatelle Model is illustrated in this schematic diagram. It describes how a simple intrinsic difference leads to a range of difficulties giving rise to different labels of specific learning difficulties. This is similar in some respects to the Specific Procedural Learning Deficit Hypothesis (Nicholson and Fawcett, 2007), but identifies a social explanation rather than assumes a ‘deficit’
Making Meaning Holistically, or Sequentially
We collectively enter the model as neurodiverse social beings. A key component of neurodiversity of particular relevance to the model is that human beings have the capacity to make meaning both holistically (sometimes known as relying on the ‘big-picture’, or ‘top-down’ approach) and sequentially (sometimes known as relying on ‘step-by-step’, or ‘bottom up’ approach). However, in practice, nearly all of us have or develop a specific preference for one or the other process (Cooper, 1997). In most cases, individuals retain the ability to process information both ways, but it is not possible to simultaneously think holistically and sequentially, and preferences can be extreme for one or the other. In this context, we are interested in what happens when there is a strong or extreme preference for holistic processing of information.
Holistic processing is, by definition, the processing of meaning. The individual starts with an overall picture or purpose and makes sense of details by locating them within this big picture, or indeed discarding them as irrelevant. They will also ‘reshuffle’ the picture, or look at it from different ‘angles’, to gain a better understanding of what is going on, how one part of the picture relates to another; what structures underpin the patterns. This process requires imagination and purpose. It is closely associated with visual thinking, but this is not a necessary component of holistic processing of information.
In contrast, sequential processing is the processing of elements that may have little intrinsic meaning until they are assembled into a sequence. Since the sequence of information (in time, or through a concept of ‘cause and effect’) is perceived as significant, sequence itself generates a significant amount of intrinsic meaning or, if not, potential meaning. This process requires short term and working memory to be able to hold onto meaningless details until their significance is recognised. It takes little imagination, since the process often requires keeping an ‘open mind’ until the evidence has been sifted, weighed and ordered, leading to a logical conclusion. It is closely associated with verbal thinking, but this is not a necessary component of sequential processing of information.
We can illustrate these two approaches by considering the task of listening to someone speak, when different aspects of the experience take on greater or lesser significance depending on whether you are processing the information holistically or sequentially. Despite the fact that speech is more intrinsically a sequential process, some significant differences in how and what information is processed can be illustrated.
At one extreme, sequential processing relies on listening carefully to the sequence of sounds, words and sentences. As grammar effects verbal meaning this also is perceived as significant and some attention is reserved for it. Conventions of ‘taking conversational turns’ arise out of sequential processing, since it is important to wait to discover the argument of the other. Analysis of the argument takes the form of logical critique and differentiation, often focused on specific words being used, or misused.
In contrast, holistic processing relies on making a quick map of the main points, or ‘structure’ and how this does or does not fit with your own perspective (‘big picture’). This involves ‘reading between the lines’ (and sometimes ‘jumping to conclusions’- holistic thinkers usually hate to wait). Attention is paid to images and metaphors being marshalled, as well as body language and tone as much as what is being said. The words are often quickly forgotten in favour of the conceptual picture that is being built. It is important to interact quickly so that the gaps in the big picture can be filled in quickly, or so that the point can be captured and bounced between you before it all becomes a meaningless (and boring) drone of words. There is usually less interest in the niceties of the point being made, than in what can be done with it.
In short, holistic processing relies on imagination, whereas sequential processing relies on working memory. A perceived ‘poor working memory’ is just the other side of the coin to good holistic processing, just as a ‘poor imagination’ is the other side of the coin to good sequential processing. Both processes have advantages and disadvantages. But neither is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Most of the readers will recognise elements of both in their experience of listening. However, when the preference for holistic meaning is extreme, barriers to understanding can easily be presented. Problems begin to emerge in an educational context, in particular, where arbitrary sequential tasks and skills are deemed to be measures of more or less ‘ability’.
Social interactions and expectations
Education is a significant social context because individuals are systematically compared to each other and the perceived ‘abilities’ identified on the basis of arbitrary criteria. Of course, some of this occurs in more informal social situations, but the educational context is far more purposeful and potentially traumatic and damaging.
A primary characteristic of post-industrial education systems is that what learners learn, in what order, and how (and how they are then assessed) is closely controlled, particularly before higher education begins. Clearly, this only tends to allow those who have accepted the ‘rules of the game’ and succeeded within them, to begin to have more significant choices about what and how they learn. In this context, it becomes less surprising that it is only when a learner with specific learning differences sufficiently overcomes all the educational barriers presented to enter higher education, that they are given access to the disabled student allowance (DSA), which might have allowed many more to get to HE in the first place had they been able to access it earlier.
At the heart of early education is the primacy of literacy. In terms of evolutionary development, literacy is a relatively new expectation for which we need to adapt human facilities, developed through long evolutionary experiences for other purposes, to fit new demands (Wolf & Stoodley, 2007). This inevitably produces a wide range of challenges. In addition, if individuals are expected to learn new skills in a highly regulated step by step way, those of us with a strong preference for holistic processing of information are likely to be at a significant disadvantage in learning them. We are vulnerable in this context to failure and easy prey to being mislabelling as ‘stupid’, ‘lazy’ or ‘odd’, or indeed as having behavioural difficulties, particularly when we question the boundaries that make little sense to us (because we can see connections across and between them).
Resulting difficulties
Sequential processing and a good working memory are usually required for all rote learning, and most ‘instruction’. This disables holistic learners, who struggle to make sense of the experience.
Barriers to learning are not restricted to the teaching of literacy, and can include mathematical processes (but not necessarily understanding), learning new physical activities in a prescribed step-by-step way, being required to pay attention to a narrow field of experience and being assessed by assuming that step-by-step processes are simple and cause no barriers to the measurement of capability or skill. This false assumption can be extremely traumatic and devastating for our self-esteem.
Resulting facilities
Holistic processing of information also has key advantages. It is particularly good for thinking outside the box, imaginative approaches of all kinds, visual thinking (which is much faster than verbal thinking- and therefore particularly helpful in risk-critical situations and sport), problem solving, and making unusual connections. In the right supportive contexts, holistic thinking lends itself to excelling at a range of activities (comedy, politics, sport, storytelling, acting, entrepreneurial business, poetry, art, film making, architecture, scientific innovation). Sadly, most of these advantages are not generally valued during schooling and can in this context also appear as problematic to teachers. Holistic learners are also passionate about their interests (sometimes mislabelled as ‘obsessions’), which can be a great advantage for personal learning, but can sometimes appear challenging to teachers who have their own (or ‘national’) agenda for what they want us to focus on.
Self-reflection
Making sense of these experiences and patterns of strengths and difficulties can be confusing. Therefore, the voices of significant others can play a key role in interpreting them. Since most activities (from reading to dancing) can be learned and developed both holistically or sequentially, how facilities and difficulties develop can appear contradictory. For example, teachers may have noticed that many people who cannot write (ie ‘dysgraphia’) can draw beautifully. The simple reason for this is that writing letters is making arbitrary memorised marks on paper, whereas drawing is making marks with purpose. The first is sequential and relies on memory, the second is holistic and relies on imagination. Some learners who struggle to learn phonics, taught themselves to read (holistically) before going to school (Tadlock & Stone, 2005). It is only when an understanding of holistic and sequentially processes reframe these experiences, that they begin to make sense. Without this ‘big picture’ people define themselves by their successes and failures. This fractures the experiences into a set of difficulties, rather than an understanding of the underlying reasons for difficulties. The experiences can leave an indelible imprint on our self-esteem (e.g. Edwards, J.1994), because academic successes largely define, in our culture, what counts as ‘clever’ or ‘stupid’.
Self-esteem
These social interactions, particularly in, but not limited to, an educational context, play a significant role in developing a good or poor sense of self-esteem. In many cases, the misinterpretation of the difficulties experienced as ‘stupidity’ or ‘daftness’ play an overriding role in developing very low self-esteem (well documented in personal accounts of specific learning differences). Holding on to areas of strength can also play a disproportionate role in an individual’s survival strategy and both can come to define who we think we are as a person. These are powerful effects that have been undervalued in academic accounts of SpLDs which tend to focus on the nature of the perceived ‘deficit’, rather than the social context in which the difficulties (misinterpreted as ‘deficit’) develop. We also now know that trauma impacts negatively on working memory making the trauma and difficulties greater (Morey et al, 2009).
Specific learning ‘difficulties’
In short, those of us who have a strong preference for holistic processing of information are vulnerable to being disabled by the expectation that we can, and must, process information sequentially. A key component of sequential processing, which is particularly disabling, is the expectation that we have a working memory that will allow it. Struggling with this usually leads to accusations of ‘stupidity’ or lack of effort. However, the difficulties we experience are not a defining feature of our difference, but the product of a long line of social interactions, personal reflections, and resulting complications of self-esteem and decision making about risk taking. Consequently, the precise nature of the sequential difficulties we experience become a lottery. It may or may not effect language development, specific learning dependent on rote learning, literacy (including phonological processing, visual processing of text, tracking of text and stability of print), sense of direction, mathematical awareness or processes, sequential organisation, motor-coordination, and so on. Researchers and assessors define different categories of specific learning ‘difficulties’, but the reality is, that if you are defined within one category, there is a greater than 50% chance you will also be given a second (Colley, 2009 and Pennington, 1991).
Researchers have searched in vain for specific causes of these various categories of difficulty while failing to see the big picture. The Bagatelle Model argues that they all result from the same difference (although this ranges in strength of preference) mediated through complex social interactions; that they are different consequences, in a world that is intolerant of holistic thinking and learning, of the same underlying difference. We also now know that dyslexia, AD(H)D, dyspraxia and autism all share the same genetic markers (Poelmans, 2011), strengthening the likelihood that they are interconnected.
The specific label we get given depends on chance interactions, self-reflections and responses, and the arbitrary nature of the specific ‘area of expertise’ of your particular assessor (Grant, 2009). However, I recognise that it is more contentious to argue that autism is also identified and developed through this same process. Teachers of people on the autistic spectrum are extremely aware that they usually use highly sequential strategies and focus on details (I personally worked with adults on the autistic spectrum for 23 years). However, it is possible to argue that the real difference is the strength of preference (being greater) and the resulting social interactions (and lack of them). A very strong preference for holistic processing can make it very difficult to prioritise information since everything is connected to everything else. If you can’t get the ‘big picture’ when you need it to understand the world, then some ‘obsession’ with detail is understandable, and closed systems (such as mathematics) hold a greater appeal. It is striking that many first person accounts of autism describe the importance of the interconnection of everything to them, of a highly holistic ‘executive function’, and of visual thinking (e.g. Grandin, 1995, Sainsbury, 2000). Whether this is a sufficient explanation for autism, remains to be seen, but the apparent contradictory ‘symptoms’ do appear to be largely explainable through the Bagatelle Model.
Conclusions
The Bagatelle Model is a new paradigm based on the social model of disability, and cannot be absorbed by the traditional ‘deficit’ models. Some notions of ‘difference’ rather than ‘difficulties’ have been co-opted by deficit models by describing the ‘difficulties’ as the ‘differences’. In the Bagatelle model, the ‘difficulties’ are a product of being disabled by a sequential world intolerant to holistic processing of information and the unnecessary imposition of sequential processing and learning strategies. The ‘difficulties’ are not the ‘difference’, they are an unnecessary consequence of the difference. This leads into what should be done about it. Rather than ‘remediating’ perceived ‘deficits’ we need to eliminate the disabling barriers and support the development of holistic learning. We need to build on strengths rather than misperceive difficulties as intrinsic ‘deficits’.
Arguably, the end result of effective sequential processing of information is to build towards a big picture. In contrast, the end result of effective holistic processing, is to account for the relevant details, to understand the structure and interrelationships of them. Holistic learners should be enabled to succeed in their learning by supporting this way of learning, and call an end to ‘remediating’ the perceived ‘deficits’. Surely this is as outdated as trying to force all people to be right handed? We need to eliminate unnecessary barriers to learning and work, rather than blame those who fall foul of them. I would further suggest that the world desperately needs holistic thinkers to help combat the worst excesses of sequential thinking, that fail to see the connections and could destroy our world, let alone the economy. In short, teachers and the education system need to value diversity rather than psychologise it when it appears to be inconvenient.
Bibliography
Cooper, R (1997) Learning Styles, Hamlyn/Cilntec, Post 16 Unified Curriculum Project, Institute of Education, London University.
Cooper, R (2010), Neurodiversity and Dyslexia, 8th Annual Disability Lecture at Cambridge University March, 2010
Edwards, Janice (1994) The scars of dyslexia London: Cassell, 1994
Grandin, T (1995) Thinking in Pictures, Doubleday
Grant, D (2009), The Psychological Assessment of Neurodiversity, in Pollak, D, (Ed) Neurodiversity in Higher Education; Positive Responses to Specific Learning Differences, Wiley-Blackwell
Nicholson, Rod and Fawcett, Angela (2007) Procedural Learning Difficulties; Re-uniting the developmental disorders? Trends in Neuroscience 30(4), 135-147
Morey, Rajendra, Dolcos, Florin, Petty, Christopher, Cooper, Debra, Pannu Hayes, Jasmeet, LaBar, Kevin and McCarthy, Gregory (2009) The role of trauma-related distractors on neural systems for working memory and emotion processing in posttraumatic stress disorder, Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2009 May; 43(8): 809–817.
Oliver, M (1990) The Politics of Disablement Palgrave Macmillan
Pennington B F (1991) Diagnosing Learning Disorders, New York; Guilford
Poelmans G., (2011), Genes and Protein Networks for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen
Sainsbury, C (2000) Martian in the Playground, Bristol, Lucky Duck Publishing
Singer, Judy. Why Can’t You Be Normal for Once in Your Life?, in Corker. Marian and French. Sally (eds), Disability Discourse, Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 1999, p. 64
Tadlock, Dee.Stone, Rhonda. (2005) Read right :coaching your child to excellence in reading New York: McGraw-Hill
Wolf, M., & Stoodley, C. J. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
