Improving Student Content Knowledge in
Inclusive Social Studies Classrooms Using
Technology-Based Cognitive Organizers: A
Systematic Replication
Richard T. Boon, Mack D. Burke, Cecil Fore, III, and Shanna Hagan-Burke
The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic
replication of a previous study (Boon, Burke, Fore,
& Spencer, 2006) on the effects of computer-generated
cognitive organizers using Inspiration 6 software versus
a traditional textbook instruction format on students'
ability to comprehend social studies content information
in high school inclusive social studies classes. A major
goal was to strengthen the results of the previous study
by using its control group as the treatment group and
its treatment group as the control group in the current
study. After ensuring that no carry-over effects from
the previous study existed, the groups were "flipped,"
and using a quasi-experimental pretestposttest group
design, 26 tenth-grade students in general education
and 18 students with mild disabilities received instruction
using a computerized cognitive organizer or traditional
textbook instruction format. Dependent measures included
a 45- item open-ended production pre-/posttest of declarative
social studies knowledge to assess the effectiveness
of the intervention. Results showed that students in
the computerized cognitive organizer condition significantly
outperformed students in the traditional textbook instruction
condition.
How Do Dyslexic Nursing Students Cope with
Clinical Practice Placements? The Impact of the
Dyslexic Profile on the Clinical Practice of
Dyslexic Nursing Students: Pedagogical Issues
and Considerations
Geraldine A. Price and Anne Gale
The safety of dyslexic nurses, and whether they are a danger to their
patients, has been widely discussed. This empirical study sought to discover
the impact of the dyslexic profile on clinical practice for nursing students.
Two focus groups of third-year nursing students in higher education
were set up: a control group and a dyslexic group.
The findings were congruent with the literature, in that students provided
evidence of literacy difficulties, memory problems, lack of automaticity
skills, issues of self-esteem as well as specific skills deficits. While cognitive
processing problems emerged, the findings also pointed to some strategies
the students were using to compensate, as well as a significant underpinning
ethos of ensuring patient safety. Finally, evidence of apparent disability
discrimination, usually resulting from ignorance by nursing mentors
who knew little or nothing about dyslexia, was also apparent.
Pedagogical considerations for the support of dyslexic students in the academic
setting have been well researched. However, it is apparent from this
study that such methods do not always transfer to the clinical setting. The
findings of the study have implications for pedagogy and support in the
work setting for dyslexic nursing students.
The Instructional Context of Inclusive Secondary General Education Classes: Teachers’ Instructional Roles and Practices, Curricular Demands, and Research-Based Practices and Standards
Janis A. Bulgren, Janet G.Marquis, Donald D. Deshler, Jean B. Schumaker, B. Keith Lenz, Betsy Davis, and Bonnie Grossen
The purpose of this study was to gain information about the high school
general educational context for students with and without disabilities. A
questionnaire was administered to general education teachers who taught
required high school courses in which students with disabilities and students
who were low achievers were enrolled. Instructional context was
explored in terms of (a) teachers' instructional roles and procedures; (b)
curricular demands; and (c) teachers' views of research-based practices
and standards. Participants were 70 high school teachers employed in nine
public high schools serving grades 9 through 12 in four states, who taught
one or more core classes in which students with disabilities were enrolled.
In terms of their instructional roles and practices, teachers indicated that
they preferred showing students how to learn at the same time they taught
content. Planning time was limited, and unit tests or daily assignments,
homework and worksheets were the most common forms of assessment.
Teachers reported a willingness to make accommodations in curriculum
materials, but did not report a high degree of use of accommodations in
actual instruction. In reporting curricular demands, teachers put more
emphasis on the mastery of content knowledge for students without disabilities,
but for students with disabilities, the emphasis was on mastery of
basic skills and strategies. As expected, participants indicated more learning
deficits and reported lower expectations for students with disabilities
than for other students. Teachers' perceptions of their schools' support for
the use of research-based instruction varied. Teachers believed that typically
achieving students were more likely than students with disabilities to
meet standards. Teachers had recommendations they believed were needed
to ensure that students with disabilities would meet standards.
A Model Incorporating the Rationale and Purpose for Conducting Mixed-Methods Research in Special Education and Beyond
Kathleen M. T. Collins, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Ida L. Sutton
This article provides a typology of reasons for conducting mixed-methods research in special education. The mixed-methods research process is described along with the role of the
rationale and purpose of study. The reasons given in the literature for utilizing mixed-methods research are explicated, and the limitations of these reason frameworks are identified. We build on these frameworks by providing a comprehensive list of reasons for conducting mixed-methods research. The reasons provided in our model are operationalized in the context of special education and, thus, complement the goals of special education researchers. Finally, we present a four-dimensional Rationale and Purpose (RAP) model demonstrating how investigations can be designed according to the rationale for using mixed methods, purpose of mixing, stage of study where mixing occurs, and emphasis of approach derived from the research question(s).
