Search results

To explain how the components of attraction theory work in unison to prompt students to take an initial stimulus and progress through critical thinking processes and into knowledge acquisition, organization, and synthesis.

Although schema theory has an important role in understanding knowledge acquisition, it does not provide directives for how to plan instruction so students can build their understandings and comprehension of subject matter. This chapter outlines a pedagogical approach to the implementation of a new theory of learning that builds on cognitive science, affect, and interest.

Students can become re-attracted to learning through effective teaching inclusive of a jolt, curiosity, retrieving explanations, counterexamples, clarifications, and embedding that information within schemata.

Proactive investigations and continued research on attraction theory can enrich our understanding of teaching and learning, provide answers for what works in the classroom, and equip us with tools from which to select for unique classroom circumstances.

This chapter addresses the question of how we might best characterize the morale of mothers of children with disabilities. Views of this question have undergone substantial evolution over the past quarter century (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2002). Early writers on the topic emphasized negative impacts on the family. Farber (1959) characterized the birth of a mentally retarded child as a tragic crisis that over time impeded the family from developing normally. Olshansky (1962) described the typical reaction of parents to a child with mental retardation as long-term demoralization, which he termed “chronic sorrow.” These assertions were then followed by empirical studies suggesting high levels of depression in mothers of children with disabilities (Cummings et al., 1966; Gath, 1977). Gath (1977), for example, compared two groups of parents with and without children with disabilities on a researcher developed measure of psychological distress and found significantly higher levels in parents of children with disabilities. She titled her report, “The impact of an abnormal child upon the parents,” seeming to imply that emotional distress, perhaps even mental illness, was the most characteristic impact. This literature also appeared to imply that the cause of parental distress was univariate, that is, the child’s disability uniquely caused it. Early studies of parental distress selected child variables as the sole predictors of emotional distress (e.g. Beckman, 1983). Turnbull and Turnbull (2002) reviewed this literature and described this historical phase as pathogenic.

Over the last several decades, as women have increasingly entered the labor force, they are spending less time at home (Bianchi, 1995; Hayghe, 1997). Having a more constrained schedule has resulted in married women and single mothers substantially decreasing the amount of time that they spend on household labor (Bianchi et al., 2000; Robinson & Godbey, 1997). Traditionally, in two-parent households, husbands rarely participated in household tasks. Now that more married women with children are employed outside the home, one might assume that they would turn to their husbands to help them manage their households. However, current research shows that fathers are making only a slightly greater contribution to housework than they did in the past (Gershuny & Robinson, 1988; Robinson & Godbey, 1997). If mothers are now spending fewer hours on housework, and fathers are only contributing slightly more, then there remains a significant proportion of household chores that either must be done by others or must remain undone. Research suggests that children in particular may find themselves responsible for an increasing proportion of household tasks. For example, the more hours mothers work outside the home, the more hours children spend on family work (Benin & Edwards, 1990; Blair, 1992b; Elder & Conger, 2000; Shelton, 1992).

The purpose of this paper is to report about the presence of misconceptions in the historical thinking of fifth-grade children with learning disabilities (LD) and their normally achieving (NA) peers. We also sought to determine the effects of implementing an integrated instructional unit about 19th century U.S. Westward Expansion on children's historical misconceptions. This unit was taught over an eight-week period by a special education teacher (subsequently referred to as Ms. M) who had approximately two years of prior professional teaching experience. In addition to quantitative information about changes in children's content knowledge, we report interview data about children's understanding of historical content and historical reasoning. Furthermore, we captured on videotape approximately 12h of classroom instruction. Ms. M and the first author of this paper independently reviewed and then discussed these videotapes for the purpose of assessing the effects of her teaching practices on the development of children's historical understanding. The implications of our findings are discussed.

Based on the aforementioned data, the risk index (RI) identifies the percentage of all students of a given racial/ethnic group in a given disability category. The RI is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial/ethnic group served in a given disability category (e.g. LD) by the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population. The 1998 OCR data revealed risk indices for all racial/ethnic groups that were higher for LD than those found for MR. The NRC (2002) report stated that, “Asian/Pacific Islander have placement rates of 2.23%. Rates for all other racial/ethnic groups exceed 6%, and for American Indian/Alaskan Natives, the rate reached 7.45%” (p. 47). The second index, odds ratio, provides a comparative index of risk and is calculated by dividing the risk index on one racial/ethnic group by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group. In the OCR and OSEP databases, the odds ratios are reported relative to White students. If the risk index is identical for a particular minority group and White students, the odds ratio will equal 1.0. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that minority group students are at a greater risk of identification, while odds ratios of less than 1.0 indicate that they are less at risk. Using the 1998 OCR placement rates, the LD odds ratio for American Indian/Alaskan Natives is 1.24, showing that they have a 24% greater likelihood of being assigned to the LD category than White students. Odds ratios for Asian/Pacific Islander are low (0.37). For both Black and Hispanic students, the odds ratios are close to 1.0. The third index, composition index (CI), shows the proportion of all children served under a given disability category who are members of a given racial/ethnic group and is calculated by dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category. Two underlying assumptions of the CI are that the sum of composition indices for the five racial/ethnic groups will total 100%, and baseline enrollment of a given racial/ethnic group is not controlled. More specifically, the CI may be calculated using the percent of 6- through 21-year old population with the racial/ethnic composition of IDEA and U.S. census population statistics. For example, if 64% of the U.S. population is White, 15% is Black, 16% is Hispanic, 4% is Asian, and 1% is American Indian these data not interpretable without knowing the percentage of the racial/ethnic composition with IDEA. Hypothetically, IDEA data may show that of the 6–21 year olds served under IDEA, 63% are White, 20% are Black, 14% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, and 1% is American Indian. To calculate disproportionality, a benchmark (e.g. 10%) against which to measure the difference between these percentages must be used. If the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of population exceeds +10, then the racial/ethnic group is overrepresented. Conversely, if the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of the population is larger than −10, then, the racial/ethnic group is underrepresented.