This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 02:27Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Special Services in the SchoolsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzss20

Learning Disorders andLearning DisabilitiesIvan Z. Holowinsky aa Rutgers University , USAPublished online: 15 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Ivan Z. Holowinsky (2000) Learning Disorders and LearningDisabilities, Special Services in the Schools, 16:1-2, 135-145, DOI: 10.1300/J008v16n01_09

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J008v16n01_09

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Learning Disorders and Learning Disabilities:A Logical and Socio-Political Puzzle

Ivan Z. Holowinsky

Rutgers University

ABSTRACT. Since the introduction of the concept of learning disabili-ties into school psychology and special education, lack of clarity con-tinues as to the precise terminology and classification. The problem ofterminology to logical and socio-political issues is complex. This articlereviews complex logical and socio-political issues of learning disabili-ties as they relate to current educational and social realities. [Articlecopies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website:<http://www.HaworthPress.com>]

KEYWORDS. Learning disabilities, mental retardation, alexia, dys-lexia, severe discrepancy criterion

History of efforts to identify and educate exceptional learners indi-cates clearly two general trends: (a) influence of cultural, socio-politi-cal and scientific trends upon terminology used in a given time; and(b) interdependence of terminology and prevalence. The beginning ofthe 19th century has been characterized by the emergence of morehumane attitudes toward those individuals described then as idiots andinsane. In all probability, some influence may be attributed to theegalitarian climate fostered by writings of Voltaire and others. WorldWar II and atrocities associated with it, brought into focus inhumane

Address correspondence to: Ivan Z. Holowinsky, Rutgers University, Graduate Schoolof Education, 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (E-mail: holowins@rci.rutgers.edu).

Special Services in the Schools, Vol. 16(1/2) 2000E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

SPECIAL SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS136

treatment of minorities and handicapped populations. In this contextthe emergence of a normalization movement in Scandinavia, especial-ly the writings of Wolfensberger (1969, 1972), can be considered as areaction to the dehumanizing effect of World War II. The 1970sbrought about reevaluation of the negative label of mental deficiencyand mental retardation (Grossman, 1973).Important factors that created a psychological climate for change

were increased social awareness among minority groups, parental in-volvement and the sharply expanding role of litigation in education.Noteworthy is the case of Diane vs. Board of Education (Cohen &DeYoung, 1973). In this case, lawyers for Mexican-American publicschool youngsters charged that students were improperly classifiedand improperly placed in the Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR)classes on the basis of inaccurate test scores. The case was settled outof court, but the agreement resulted in radical changes in the schoolcode of California. As summarized by Cohen and DeYoung, the fol-lowing rules and regulations were established to guarantee due pro-cess in education and treatment: the parent or guardian must givewritten permission for individual psychological evaluation; an indi-vidual case study must be conducted that includes educational history,achievement data, psychometric assessment, developmental history,peer relationship, health history, psychological adjustment, social,economic, and cultural background information, and other importantinformation; a local admissions committee must be established; a con-ference must be held with the parent; and written consent for specialplacement must be secured (Cohen & DeYoung, 1973, p. 268).Since the 1970s, the learning disabilities category emerged as the

largest group among the exceptional learners and the estimated num-ber of children with learning disabilities continues to increase further.Simultaneously, with the increase in the number of children classifiedas learning disabled there has been a very significant increase in theprofessional literature devoted to children with learning disabilities.Black (1974) reported that articles on learning disabilities in scholarlyjournals increased from very few in the 1960s to a couple of hundredin 1977. In 1986, Summers reported that for the 15 year period (1968to 1983) 2,270 articles on topics related to learning disabilities havebeen published in 248 journals.Approximately in the same period, according to the data provided

by the U. S. Office of Education, during the school year 1976/77 there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ivan Z. Holowinsky 137

were 797,213 children classified as learning disabled. That numberincreased to 1,839,292 in 1984/85, and to 2,559,000 in 1997. The totalnumber of all classified children increased from 3,708,599 in 1976/77to 4,363,031 in 1984/85 to 5,067,000 in 1997 or approximately 11%of the school age population. Approximately during the same time thecategory of mental retardation declined from 967,567 in 1976/77 to717,885 in 1984/85 to 584,000 in 1997. The data shows that at thetime when the Learning Disabilities category more than doubled, thementally retarded category declined almost in half. There have been anumber of complex reasons for this trend among them an aversion tothe negative connotation of ‘‘mental retardation.’’ For the past centurywith the increase of services to the exceptional learners, there alsowere increased expenditures for such services. As reported by TheNew York Times of December 28, 1997, the financial expenditure forSpecial Education reached 30 billion a year in Federal, State and localmoney. For the past century attempts to provide services and educateexceptional learners have been influenced by complex issues of ter-minology, labeling, as well as cultural and socio-political factors.

HISTORICAL TRENDS

In this article, I will focus upon historical trends in the developmentof terminologies describing exceptional learners as well as complexsocio-political considerations that created what may be described as alogical, and socio-political puzzle.Since the time when historical records have been mentioned, indi-

viduals that in some respects have been different than most have beenidentified and labeled. At the root of the process has been the basicpropensity of human cognition to focus upon similarities and differ-ences of observable phenomena. Throughout the centuries individualslabeled as ‘‘idiots’’ and ‘‘insane,’’ manifested difficulties in cognitiveand/or affective domain, which prevented them from solving problemsof learning as well as others. With this in mind for the purpose of thisarticle, exceptional learners will be defined as individuals manifestinglearning difficulties.

SCIENTIFIC STUDY

The scientific study of learning difficulties referred to at that time asmental deficiency (idiocy) was begun by the pioneering work of Itard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

SPECIAL SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS138

in 1799 (Kanner, 1960). Roots of child study in Europe can be tracedto the philosophical influence of empiricism. It is evident that empiri-cism was very strong in Europe in the nineteenth century and it didinfluence the thinking of Itard and Seguin, pioneers in the educationand training of handicapped and mentally retarded children (Spitz,1986). Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning ofthe twentieth, the strong movement known as pedology emerged inEurope. It was defined as the study of the child from all facets (De-paepe, 1985). In the Fall of 1909, with the help of a group of teachersof Lviv (at that time in Austro-Hungary) Professor Twardoswki orga-nized a pedological society. Next year, a similar society was organizedin Cracow (Grudzinska, 1912).A number of noted journals of child study were in existence at that

time. In the USA, G. Stanley Hall began publication in 1891 of Peda-gogical Seminary. In the United Kingdom, The Paedologist (laterrenamed The Child Study) was published. In Germany, Neumann andLay edited the journal Die Experimentelle Padagogik. In France, A.Binet began to publish some of his earlier works in L’Annee Psycholo-gique. Pedologists maintained that child study depended on three ma-jor variables: Biological, Psychological and Sociological. There wasan attempt to design pedology in the likeness of natural sciences. Thefirst World Congress of Pedology, held in 1911 in Brussels, Belgium,was attended by nearly 300 participants representing twenty-twocountries (Depaepe, 1985). Among noted speakers who addressed thecongress was V. M. Bekhtiarev, founder of the School of Reflexology.In 1912, in Brussels, the congress provided initiative for the establish-ment of the Faculte Internationale de Pedologie (Depaepe, 1985).In the 1940s interest began to shift among educators from mental

retardation to brain injury as etiology of learning deficits in children(Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947). In response to the interest in this subject,the National Institute of Health approved in the 1960s a major reviewof research (Chalfant & Scheffelin, 1969). The 1960s and early 1970scan be described as the MBD (Minimal Brain Dysfunction) decade(Clements, 1966; Cruickshank, 1966). At that time MBD became thekey concept in Special Education. There existed even a National Asso-ciation for Brain Injured Children. The concept of specific learningdisabilities was publicly introduced by Professor Kirk (1963), a pio-neer in the field of mental retardation at the first annual meeting of theassociation in Chicago in 1963. As explained to me in a personal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ivan Z. Holowinsky 139

conversation by Burton Blat, Kirk was expecting that the new conceptwill replace the pejorative concept of mild mental retardation. As weknow today, it did not happen.Two other developments of the 1970s should be focused upon brief-

ly. One development may be described as shifting emphasis towardmaking diagnosis less stringent, and the other as a significant changein mental retardation classification.In his classical work on higher cortical function in man, Professor

Luria (1962) identified aphasic like conditions associated with learn-ing difficulties as alexia and agraphia. This stringent restrictive diag-nosis implied the ‘‘absence of’’ ability to recognize or to write sym-bols. The meaning of these conditions has been gradually changed tothe ‘‘dysfunction of’’ as for example: dyslexia and dysgraphia. As aresult of a less stringent diagnosis the prevalence of the number ofindividuals within the category of dyslexia or dysgraphia increased.

CHANGES IN THE AAMR CLASSIFICATION

Another important development of the early 1970s was a change inthe AAMR classification which profoundly influenced an estimatedprevalence of the MR population. The so called Grossman revision of1973 eliminated from the classification system the borderline range(70-82 I.Q.), which contained the largest proportion of all those indi-viduals previously classified as M.R. within the range of theoretical 0to 82 I.Q.’s. As a result of this change, clinicians began to consider allof those individuals scoring higher than a 70 I.Q. as falling within therange of ‘‘normal’’ intelligence. Consequently, those who did notachieve academically within age expectation, and most of those be-tween 70 to 80 I.Q.’s who did not were after 1973 labeled learningdisabled instead of educable mentally retarded. In reality the strengthsand weaknesses of this segment of the school population did notchange much except the way they were labeled. Gottlieb, Alter, Gott-lieb and Wishner (1994) collected data on the educational achieve-ment of children with learning disabilities over a period of time andcame to the conclusion that L.D. children function in a very similarway than those labeled as educable mentally retarded children per-formed twenty-five years ago. As a matter of fact my own dissertationcompleted in 1960 revealed that achievement in basic educationalskills is more directly related to the level of intelligence than to any

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

SPECIAL SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS140

other variable affecting the educational process. The findings of thisstudy indicated that the achievement of students scoring within the 80to 100 I.Q. range was statistically different from those within the 100to 110 I.Q. range. Holowinsky’s (1960) dissertation research wasbased upon a sample of 376, CA 12 to 17. The sample was dividedinto the I.Q. groups: 80 to 90; 90 to 100; 100 to 110. Achievement inreading and arithmetic was investigated. The process of labeling chil-dren as falling into the category of specific learning disabilities createda situation when many children with non-specific general learningdisorders or learning difficulties were classified under the label oflearning disabilities. This trend is supported by more recent studieswhich show that children labeled as learning disabled have manydifficulties similar to those exhibited by poor learners in such areas asreading and arithmetic.Mastropieri and Scruggs (1997) indicated that students with learn-

ing disabilities are characterized by language-based difficulties in suchareas as reading, semantic memory and verbal information processing.They exhibit significant deficit in reading comprehension, which mayinclude problems not only in remembering content, facts and details,but also in interpreting and making inferences about the informationpresented.After an extensive survey of the literature, Aaron (1997) reached a

conclusion that the validity of the premise that there is qualitativedifferences between poor readers with L.D. and poor readers withoutL.D. can not be substantiated. He pointed out that despite the beliefheld by educators that L.D. and non-L.D. poor readers require differ-ent instructional strategies, very little research is available to supportsuch a premise.Furthermore, Aaron (1997) strongly criticized the discrepancy for-

mula itself that has been developed to distinguish L.D. students fromnon-L.D. poor readers. As he pointed out I.Q. alone is not a potentpredictor of reading potential accounting for approximately only 25%of the variance in reading performance. Aaron also states verbatim:‘‘It should be noted, however, that even L.D. specialists have norigorous criterion for identifying L.D. and state departments of specialeducation themselves have not been successful in prescribing withprecision the extent of discrepancy which mark L.D.’’ (p. 465).In a related study also reported by Aaron, Ysseldyke, O’Sullivan,

Thurlow, and Christenson (1989) investigated the methods used in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ivan Z. Holowinsky 141

teaching children classified as learning disabled and those classified aseducable mentally retarded. They discovered that ‘‘There are fewqualitative differences in the nature of reading and math instructionreceived by different categories of handicapped learners’’ (p. 27).With respect to mathematical problem solving, Montague (1997)

suggested that the predominant cognitive explanation seems to bequantitative and/or qualitative differences in strategic processing. Ingeneral, while middle school children classified as learning disableduse as many problem-solving strategies as higher achieving students,they focus on basic computational strategies rather than higher levelproblem representation strategies. This brief background discussionwill help us to place in a proper context what might be considered as alogical and socio-political puzzle.

A LOGICAL PUZZLE

Let me begin with what may be considered as a logical puzzle. It isgenerally accepted that an equation A = B can also be accepted as B =A. However, this is only true in those situations where both A and B donot include subclasses or are unidimentional. In the case where one sideof the equation is a subclass of a larger universe or where we aredealing with unequal units, the equation does not hold. For example, itis perfectly okay to say that all criminals are humans or C = H. Howev-er, we can not reverse the equation and say that H = C, or that allhumans are criminals. Likewise, it is logical to say that all L.D. childrenmanifest learning disorders. However, we can not say that all children,who manifest learning disorders should be classified as L.D. or mani-festing specific learning disabilities. The reason is that many otherexceptional learners manifest learning disorders, e.g., children withmental retardation, aphasia or emotional disturbances. In my judgment,L.D. as a clinical label and a category represents a specific subgroup oflearning disorders and should not be used as a general label.

A SOCIO-POLITICAL PUZZLE

Lumping together into one category children who manifest generallearning disorders with those classified as showing specific learning dis-abilities, as well as the use of discrepancy formula and the process ofarriving at the L.D. classification, are responsible for what may be called

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

SPECIAL SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS142

a socio-political puzzle. As a matter of fact, McMillan et al. (1996)expressed an opinion that the learning disabilities classification became apolitical issue rather than a question of educational classification.In a nation that spends more on special education than any other

nation, as well as has the best trained teachers and the most sophisti-cated research, a twofold increase in prevalence within a decade shouldraise questions. Is it possible that most of those labeled learning dis-abled in order to receive help, have educational difficulties related toinadequate motivation, poor study habits, or inappropriate educationalstrategies? Why can not they receive help for mild learning problemswithout being labeled? The use of the discrepancy formula and the waythe classification is arrived at are further adding to the confusion.The problem is that there are two populations of children with

learning disabilities: (a) those with specific etiology, such as dysgra-phia and dyslexia; and those with general learning disability. As Aaron(1997) recently indicated, ‘‘several studies which have been publishedby the Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities indi-cated that it would be impossible to differentiate achievers on the basisof their psychometric profiles’’ (p. 465).In her dissertation, Celso (1986) investigated current practices related

to the identification of students classified as learning disabled in the NewJersey Public School districts. Although practices in one state may not beindicative of the nation as a whole, the results are interesting.Application of the severe discrepancy criterion, as embodied in the

Cone and Wilson (1981) formula, to this sample reveals that fully 93%of the students classified by school practitioners as LD in the threeschool districts studied fail to meet the threshold test. The study alsoreveals: a ratio of 2.5 male LD students for each female; a mean fullscale IQ of 91.6, with about one-third of the same exhibiting scoresmore than one-standard deviation below the national average; a lowsocioeconomic mean index value and a negatively skewed distribu-tion; and a mean achievement that is below the national average fornon-handicapped students in reading, language, and mathematics.Currently, a child who manifests educational difficulties because of

a discrepancy between achievement and potential is assigned a label ofL.D. if he/she can not be labeled as E.D., EMR, or any other category.Two factors exacerbate the problem with this process. As mentionedearlier, the meaning of the ‘‘average potential’’ has changed since theelimination of the range of borderline retardation in the AAMR classi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ivan Z. Holowinsky 143

fication. The second factor in the classification process was the needfor a label to provide state and federal resources for exceptional learn-ers. This influenced the number of school age children who presentlywere labeled as learning disabled. The same children, who in the pasthad generalized learning difficulties were described as slow learnersor educationally disadvantaged. The issue is further complicated bythe fact that many children with generalized learning difficulties comefrom low socio-economic levels. It may be assumed that many com-plex issues apart from learning potential are associated with inade-quate educational performance.It is unfortunate that many studies done with students who are

considered as learning disabled are of a correlational nature. It is evenworse that many studies make a basic research error by inferring uponcausation because of association. As one such example may be studiesthat blame lack of financial resources for the poor educationalachievement of children. I do not intend to imply that financial re-sources are not important. However, a home environment that fostersmotivation toward educational achievement and good study habits, isas equally important.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a question may be raised as to what could be a possiblesolution to resolve the L.D. puzzle. I would like to suggest for discussiontwo approaches: complete delabeling and individualized instruction.Complete delabeling would require that services for exceptional

learners should be based upon need of the individual child rather thancategory or classification. This will necessitate changes in our ap-proach as to the funding formula for special education.Individualized instruction will require new approaches to the teach-

er-training in the area of elementary and special education. The pro-cess of selection of candidates for the training programs in teachereducation will require a review.

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review ofEducational Research, 4(67), 461-502.

Black, W. (1974). The word explosion in learning disabilities: A notation of literaturetrends 1962-1974. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 66-67.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

SPECIAL SERVICES IN THE SCHOOLS144

Celso, P. A. (1986). An evaluation of current practices relating to the identification oflearning disabled students in New Jersey public school districts. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, Graduate School of Education, NewBrunswick, NJ.

Chalfont, J. C., & Scheffelin, M. H. (1969). Central processing disorders in children:A review of research. Bethesda, MD: U. S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare.

Clements, S. D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children (NINDS MonographNo. 3, U.S. Publication No. 1415). Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Cohen, J. S., & DeYoung, H. (1973). The role of litigation in the improvement ofprogramming for the handicapped. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The firstreview of special education (Vol. 2). Philadelphia, PA: JSE Press.

Cone, T. E., & Wilson, L. R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A criticalanalysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(4), 359-371.

Cruickshank, W. M. (1966). The teacher of brain injured children. Syracuse, NY:Syracuse University Press.

Depaepe, M. (1985). Science, technology and paedology: The concept of science atthe Faculte Internationale de Pedologie in brussels (1912-1914). Scientia Paedog-ica Experimentalis, 1, 14-28.

Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb & Wishner. (1994). Special education in Urban America: Itis not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 4(27), 453-466.

Grossman, H. (Ed.). (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mentalretardation (Rev. edition). Washington, DC: American Association of MentalDeficiency.

Grudzinska, A. (1912). Report of the Polish Child Study Association in Warsaw forthe years 1909-1910 and 1910-1911. The Pedagogical Seminary, 19, 294-296.

Holowinsky, I. Z. (1960). The relationship between intelligence (80-110 I.Q.) andachievement in basic educational skills for a selected sample in Camden, NJ.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.

Kanner, L. (1960). Itard, Sequin, Howe: Three pioneers in the education of retardedchildren. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 65, 2-10.

Kirk, S. A. (1963). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities.Proceedings: Conference on exploration into the problems of the perceptuallyhandicapped (Vol. 1). First annual meeting, Chicago.

Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. NY: Basic Books.Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading com-

prehension in students with learning disabilities, 1976 to 1996. Remedial andSpecial Education, 4(18), 197-213.

McMillan, D., Gresham, F. M., Siperstein, G., & Bocier, K. M. (1996). The labyrinthof IDEA: School decisions on referred students with subaverage general intelli-gence. American Journal of Mental Retardation, (101), 161-175.

Montague, M. (1997). Student perception, mathematical problem solving and learn-ing disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 1(18), 46-53.

Spitz, H. H. (1986). The raising of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ivan Z. Holowinsky 145

Strauss, A. A., & Lehtinen, L. O. (1947). Psychopathology and education of braininjured child. NY: Grune & Stratton.

Summers, E. G. (1986). The information flood in learning disabilities: A bibliometricanalysis of journal literature. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1). The NewYork Times, (1997). December 28.

Wolfensberger, W. (1969). The origin and nature of our institutional models. InKugel, R. B., & Wolfensberger, W. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential ser-vices for the mentally retarded, Washington, DC: President’s Panel on MentalRetardation.

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toron-to: Leonard Crainford.

Ysseldyke, J. E., O’Sullivan, P. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Christenson, S. L. (1989).Qualitative differences in reading and math instruction received by handicappedstudents. Remedial and Special Education, 1(10), 14-20.

Received: 04/10/98Revised: 08/12/98Accepted: 10/01/98

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

02:

27 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014