ighootio.info Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:3033::6815:6cd  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

IGHOOTIO.INFO


Skip to content
 * Home
 * About
 * Contact us
 * Faq
 * Media
 * News
 * Privacy policy


INCREASING STUDENT SUCCESS THROUGH INSTRUCTION IN SELF-DETERMINATION



An enormous amount of research shows the importance of self-determination (i.e.,
autonomy) for students in elementary school through college for enhancing
learning and improving important post-school outcomes.
Findings

Research by psychologists Richard Ryan, PhD, and Edward Deci, PhD, on
Self-Determination Theory indicates that intrinsic motivation (doing something
because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable), and thus higher quality
learning, flourishes in contexts that satisfy human needs for competence,
autonomy, and relatedness. Students experience competence when challenged and
given prompt feedback. Students experience autonomy when they feel supported to
explore, take initiative and develop and implement solutions for their problems.
Students experience relatedness when they perceive others listening and
responding to them. When these three needs are met, students are more
intrinsically motivated and actively engaged in their learning.

Numerous studies have found that students who are more involved in setting
educational goals are more likely to reach their goals. When students perceive
that the primary focus of learning is to obtain external rewards, such as a
grade on an exam, they often perform more poorly, think of themselves as less
competent, and report greater anxiety than when they believe that exams are
simply a way for them to monitor their own learning. Some studies have found
that the use of external rewards actually decreased motivation for a task for
which the student initially was motivated. In a 1999 examination of 128 studies
that investigated the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivations, Drs.
Deci and Ryan, along with psychologist Richard Koestner, PhD, concluded that
such rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic
motivation by undermining people’s taking responsibility for motivating or
regulating themselves.

Self-determination research has also identified flaws in high stakes, test
focused school reforms, which despite good intentions, has led teachers and
administrators to engage in precisely the types of interventions that result in
poor quality learning. Dr. Ryan and colleagues found that high stakes tests tend
to constrain teachers’ choices about curriculum coverage and curtail teachers’
ability to respond to students’ interests (Ryan & La Guardia, 1999). Also,
psychologists Tim Urdan, PhD, and Scott Paris, PhD, found that such tests can
decrease teacher enthusiasm for teaching, which has an adverse effect on
students’ motivation (Urdan & Paris, 1994).

The processes described in self-determination theory may be particularly
important for children with special educational needs. Researcher Michael
Wehmeyer found that students with disabilities who are more self-determined are
more likely to be employed and living independently in the community after
completing high school than students who are less self-determined.

Research also shows that the educational benefits of self-determination
principles don’t stop with high school graduation. Studies show how the
orientation taken by college and medical school instructors (whether it is
toward controlling students’ behavior or supporting the students’ autonomy)
affects the students’ motivation and learning.
Significance

Self-determination theory has identified ways to better motivate students to
learn at all educational levels, including those with disabilities.
Practical Application

Schools throughout the country are using self-determination instruction as a way
to better motivate students and meet the growing need to teach children and
youth ways to more fully accept responsibility for their lives by helping them
to identify their needs and develop strategies to meet those needs.

Researchers have developed and evaluated instructional interventions and
supports to encourage self-determination for all students, with many of these
programs designed for use by students with disabilities. Many parents,
researchers and policy makers have voiced concern about high rates of
unemployment, under-employment and poverty experienced by students with
disabilities after they complete their educational programs. Providing support
for student self-determination in school settings is one way to enhance student
learning and improve important post-school outcomes for students with
disabilities. Schools have particularly emphasized the use of self-determination
curricula with students with disabilities to meet federal mandates to actively
involve students with disabilities in the Individualized Education Planning
process.

Programs to promote self-determination help students acquire knowledge, skills
and beliefs that meet their needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (for
example, see Steps to Self-determination by educational researchers Sharon Field
and Alan Hoffman). Such programs also provide instruction aimed specifically at
helping students play a more active role in educational planning (for example,
see The Self-directed Individualized Education Plan by Jim Martin, Laura Huber
Marshall, Laurie Maxson, & Patty Jerman).

Drs. Field and Hoffman developed a model designed to guide the development of
self-determination instructional interventions. According to the model,
instructional activities in areas such as increasing self-awareness; improving
decision-making, goal-setting and goal-attainment skills; enhancing
communication and relationship skills; and developing the ability to celebrate
success and learn from reflecting on experiences lead to increased student
self-determination. Self-determination instructional programs help students
learn how to participate more actively in educational decision-making by helping
them become familiar with the educational planning process, assisting them to
identify information they would like to share at educational planning meetings,
and supporting students to develop skills to effectively communicate their needs
and wants. Examples of activities used in self-determination instructional
programs include reflecting on daydreams to help students decide what is
important to them; teaching students how to set goals that are important to them
and then, with the support of peers, family members and teachers, taking steps
to achieve those goals. Providing contextual supports and opportunities for
students, such as coaching for problem-solving and offering opportunities for
choice, are also critical elements that lead to meeting needs for competence,
autonomy and relatedness and thus, increasing student self-determination.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Student, Success | Comments Off


HOW TO BUILD A BETTER EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM: JIGSAW CLASSROOMS



The jigsaw classroom technique can transform competitive classrooms in which
many students are struggling into cooperative classrooms in which
once-struggling students show dramatic academic and social improvements.
Findings

In the early 1970s, in the wake of the civil rights movement, educators were
faced with a social dilemma that had no obvious solution. All over the country,
well-intentioned efforts to desegregate America’s public schools were leading to
serious problems. Ethnic minority children, most of whom had previously attended
severely under-funded schools, found themselves in classrooms composed
predominantly of more privileged White children. This created a situation in
which students from affluent backgrounds often shone brilliantly while students
from impoverished backgrounds often struggled. Of course, this difficult
situation seemed to confirm age-old stereotypes: that Blacks and Latinos are
stupid or lazy and that Whites are pushy and overly competitive. The end result
was strained relations between children from different ethnic groups and
widening gaps in the academic achievement of Whites and minorities.

Drawing on classic psychological research on how to reduce tensions between
competing groups (e.g., see Allport, 1954; Sherif, 1958; see also Pettigrew,
1998), Elliot Aronson and colleagues realized that one of the major reasons for
this problem was the competitive nature of the typical classroom. In a typical
classroom, students work on assignments individually, and teachers often call on
students to see who can publicly demonstrate his or her knowledge. Anyone who
has ever been called to the board to solve a long division problem – only to get
confused about dividends and divisors – knows that public failure can be
devastating. The snide remarks that children often make when their peers fail do
little to remedy this situation. But what if students could be taught to work
together in the classroom – as cooperating members of a cohesive team? Could a
cooperative learning environment turn things around for struggling students?
When this is done properly, the answer appears to be a resounding yes.

In response to real educational dilemmas, Aronson and colleagues developed and
implemented the jigsaw classroom technique in Austin, Texas, in 1971. The jigsaw
technique is so named because each child in a jigsaw classroom has to become an
expert on a single topic that is a crucial part of a larger academic puzzle. For
example, if the children in a jigsaw classroom were working on a project about
World War II, a classroom of 30 children might be broken down into five diverse
groups of six children each. Within each group, a different child would be given
the responsibility of researching and learning about a different specific topic:
Khanh might learn about Hitler’s rise to power, Tracy might learn about the U.S.
entry into the war, Mauricio might learn about the development of the atomic
bomb, etc. To be sure that each group member learned his or her material well,
the students from different groups who had the same assignment would be
instructed to compare notes and share information. Then students would be
brought together in their primary groups, and each student would present his or
her “piece of the puzzle” to the other group members. Of course, teachers play
the important role of keeping the students involved and derailing any tensions
that may emerge. For example, suppose Mauricio struggled as he tried to present
his information about the atomic bomb. If Tracy were to make fun of him, the
teacher would quickly remind Tracy that while it may make her feel good to make
fun of her teammate, she is hurting herself and her group – because everyone
will be expected to know all about the atomic bomb on the upcoming quiz.
Significance
When properly carried out, the jigsaw classroom technique can transform
competitive classrooms in which many students are struggling into cooperative
classrooms in which once-struggling students show dramatic academic and social
improvements (and in which students who were already doing well continue to
shine). Students in jigsaw classrooms also come to like each other more, as
students begin to form cross-ethnic friendships and discard ethnic and cultural
stereotypes. Finally, jigsaw classrooms decrease absenteeism, and they even seem
to increase children’s level of empathy (i.e., children’s ability to put
themselves in other people’s shoes). The jigsaw technique thus has the potential
to improve education dramatically in a multi-cultural world by revolutionizing
the way children learn.
Practical Application

Since its demonstration in the 1970s, the jigsaw classroom has been used in
hundreds of classrooms settings across the nation, ranging from the elementary
schools where it was first developed to high school and college classrooms
(e.g., see Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, & Sikes, 1977; Perkins & Saris,
2001; Slavin, 1980). Researchers know that the technique is effective,
incidentally, because it has been carefully studied using solid research
techniques. For example, in many cases, students in different classrooms who are
covering the same material are randomly assigned to receive either traditional
instruction (no intervention) or instruction by means of the jigsaw technique.
Studies in real classrooms have consistently revealed enhanced academic
performance, reductions in stereotypes and prejudice, and improved social
relations.

Aronson is not the only researcher to explore the merits of cooperative learning
techniques. Shortly after Aronson and colleagues began to document the power of
the jigsaw classroom, Robert Slavin, Elizabeth Cohen and others began to
document the power of other kinds of cooperative learning programs (see Cohen &
Lotan, 1995; Slavin, 1980; Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003). As of this
writing, some kind of systematic cooperative learning technique had been applied
in about 1500 schools across the country, and the technique appears to be
picking up steam. Perhaps the only big question that remains about cooperative
learning techniques such as the jigsaw classroom is why these techniques have
not been implemented even more broadly than they already have.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged developed, improvements, System | Comments Off


HAVE YOUR CHILDREN HAD THEIR ANTI-SMOKING SHOTS?



Findings

In the early 1960s, social psychologist William McGuire published some classic
papers showing that it is surprisingly easy to change people’s attitudes about
things that we all wholeheartedly accept as true. For example, for speakers
armed with a little knowledge of persuasion, it is remarkably easy to convince
almost anyone that brushing one’s teeth is not such a great idea. McGuire’s
insight into this curious phenomenon was that it is easy to change people’s
minds about things that they have always taken for granted precisely because
most people have little if any practice resisting attacks on attitudes that no
one ever questions.

Taking this logic a little further, McGuire asked if it might be possible to
train people to resist attacks on their beliefs by giving them practice at
resisting arguments that they could easily refute. Specifically, McGuire drew an
analogy between biological resistance to disease and psychological resistance to
persuasion. Biological inoculation works by exposing people to a weakened
version of an attacking agent such as a virus. People’s bodies produce
antibodies that make them immune to the attacking agent, and when a full-blown
version of the agent hits later in life, people win the biological battle
against the full-blown disease. Would giving people a little practice fending
off a weak attack on their attitudes make it easier for people to resist
stronger attacks on their attitudes that come along later? The answer turns out
to be yes. McGuire coined the phrase attitude inoculation to refer to the
process of resisting strong persuasive arguments by getting practice fighting
off weaker versions of the same arguments.
Significance

Once attitude inoculation had been demonstrated consistently in the laboratory,
researchers decided to see if attitude inoculation could be used to help
parents, teachers, and social service agents deal with a pressing social problem
that kills about 440,000 people in the U.S. every year: cigarette smoking.
Smoking seemed like an ideal problem to study because children below the age of
10 or 12 almost always report negative attitudes about smoking. However, in the
face of peer pressure to be cool, many of these same children become smokers
during middle to late adolescence.
Practical Application

Adolescents change their attitudes about smoking (and become smokers) because of
the power of peer pressure. Researchers quickly realized that if they could
inoculate children against pro-smoking arguments (by teaching them to resist
pressure from their peers who believed that smoking is “cool”), they might be
able to reduce the chances that children would become smokers. A series of field
studies of attitude inoculation, conducted in junior high schools and high
schools throughout the country, demonstrated that brief interventions using
attitude inoculation dramatically reduced rates of teenage smoking. For
instance, in an early study by Cheryl Perry and colleagues (1980), high school
students inoculated junior high schools students against smoking by having the
younger kids role-play the kind of situations they might actually face with a
peer who pressured them to try a cigarette. For example, when a role-playing
peer called a student “chicken” for not being willing to try an imaginary
cigarette, the student practiced answers such as “I’d be a real chicken if I
smoked just to impress you.” The kids who were inoculated in this way were about
half as likely to become smokers as were kids in a very similar school who did
not receive this special intervention.

Public service advertising campaigns have also made use of attitude inoculation
theory by encouraging parents to help their children devise strategies for
saying no when peers encourage them to smoke. Programs that have made whole or
partial use of attitude inoculation programs have repeatedly documented the
effectiveness of attitude inoculation to prevent teenage smoking, to curb
illicit drug use, and to reduce teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted
diseases. In comparison with old-fashioned interventions such as simple
education about the risks of smoking or teenage pregnancy, attitude inoculation
frequently reduces risky behaviors by 30-70% (see Botvin et al., 1995; Ellickson
& Bell, 1990; Perry et al., 1980). As psychologist David Myers put it in his
popular social psychology textbook, “Today any school district or teacher
wishing to use the social psychological approach to smoking prevention can do so
easily, inexpensively, and with the hope of significant reductions in future
smoking rates and health costs.” So the next time you think about inoculating
kids to keep them healthy, make sure you remember that one of the most important
kinds of inoculation any kid can get is a psychological inoculation against
tobacco.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged advertising, laboratory | Comments Off


EARLY INTERVENTION CAN IMPROVE LOW-INCOME CHILDREN’S COGNITIVE SKILLS AND
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT



National Head Start program conceptualized while psychologists were beginning to
study preventive intervention for young children living in poverty.
Findings
As a group, children who live in poverty tend to perform worse in school than do
children from more privileged backgrounds. For the first half of the 20th
century, researchers attributed this difference to inherent cognitive deficits.
At the time, the prevailing belief was that the course of child development was
dictated by biology and maturation. By the early 1960s, this position gave way
to the notion popularized by psychologists such as J. McVicker Hunt and Benjamin
Bloom that intelligence could rather easily be shaped by the environment. There
was very little research at the time to support these speculations but a few
psychologists had begun to study whether environmental manipulation could
prevent poor cognitive outcomes. Results of studies by psychologists Susan Gray
and Rupert Klaus (1965), Martin Deutsch (1965) and Bettye Caldwell and former
U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond (1968) supported the notion that early
attention to physical and psychological development could improve cognitive
ability.
Significance

These preliminary results caught the attention of Sargent Shriver, President
Lyndon Johnson’s chief strategist in implementing an arsenal of antipoverty
programs as part of the War on Poverty. His idea for a school readiness program
for children of the poor focused on breaking the cycle of poverty. Shriver
reasoned that if poor children could begin school on an equal footing with
wealthier classmates, they would have a better of chance of succeeding in school
and avoiding poverty in adulthood. He appointed a planning committee of 13
professionals in physical and mental health, early education, social work, and
developmental psychology. Their work helped shape what is now known as the
federal Head Start program.

The three developmental psychologists in the group were Urie Bronfenbrenner,
Mamie Clark, and Edward Zigler. Bronfenbrenner convinced the other members that
intervention would be most effective if it involved not just the child but the
family and community that comprise the child-rearing environment. Parent
involvement in school operations and administration were unheard of at the time,
but it became a cornerstone of Head Start and proved to be a major contributor
to its success. Zigler had been trained as a scientist and was distressed that
the new program was not going to be field-tested before its nationwide launch.
Arguing that it was not wise to base such a massive, innovative program on good
ideas and concepts but little empirical evidence, he insisted that research and
evaluation be part of Head Start. When he later became the federal official
responsible for administering the program, Zigler (often referred to as the
“father of Head Start”) worked to cast Head Start as a national laboratory for
the design of effective early childhood services.

Although it is difficult to summarize the hundreds of empirical studies of Head
Start outcomes, Head Start does seem to produce a variety of benefits for most
children who participate. Although some studies have suggested that the
intellectual advantages gained from participation in Head Start gradually
disappear as children progress through elementary school, some of these same
studies have shown more lasting benefits in the areas of school achievement and
adjustment.
Practical Application

Head Start began as a great experiment that over the years has yielded prolific
results. Some 20 million children and families have participated in Head Start
since the summer of 1965; current enrollment approaches one million annually,
including those in the new Early Head Start that serves families with children
from birth to age 3. Psychological research on early intervention has
proliferated, creating an expansive literature and sound knowledge base. Many
research ideas designed and tested in the Head Start laboratory have been
adapted in a variety of service delivery programs. These include family support
services, home visiting, a credentialing process for early childhood workers,
and education for parenthood. Head Start’s efforts in preschool education
spotlighted the value of school readiness and helped spur today’s movement
toward universal preschool.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged developmental, education, program, psychology |
Comments Off


FAMILY-LIKE ENVIRONMENT BETTER FOR TROUBLED CHILDREN AND TEENS



The Teaching-Family Model changes bad behavior through straight talk and loving
relationships.
Findings

In the late 1960′s, psychologists Elaine Phillips, Elery Phillips, Dean Fixsen,
and Montrose Wolf developed an empirically tested treatment program to help
troubled children and juvenile offenders who had been assigned to residential
group homes. These researchers combined the successful components of their
studies into the Teaching-Family Model, which offers a structured treatment
regimen in a family-like environment. The model is built around a married couple
(teaching-parents) that lives with children in a group home and teaches them
essential interpersonal and living skills. Not only have teaching parents’
behaviors and techniques been assessed for their effectiveness, but they have
also been empirically tested for whether children like them. Teaching-parents
also work with the children’s parents, teachers, employers, and peers to ensure
support for the children’s positive changes. Although more research is needed,
preliminary results suggest that, compared to children in other residential
treatment programs, children in Teaching-Family Model centers have fewer
contacts with police and courts, lower dropout rates, and improved school grades
and attendance.

Couples are selected to be teaching-parents based on their ability to provide
individualized and affirming care. Teaching-parents then undergo an intensive
year-long training process. In order to maintain their certification,
teaching-parents and Teaching-Family Model organizations are evaluated every
year, and must meet the rigorous standards set by the Teaching-Family
Association.
Significance
The Teaching-Family Model is one of the few evidence-based residential treatment
programs for troubled children. In the past, many treatment programs viewed
delinquency as an illness, and therefore placed children in institutions for
medical treatment. The Teaching-Family Model, in contrast, views children’s
behavior problems as stemming from their lack of essential interpersonal
relationships and skills. Accordingly, the Teaching-Family Model provides
children with these relationships and teaches them these skills, using
empirically validated methods. With its novel view of problem behavior and its
carefully tested and disseminated treatment program, the Teaching-Family Model
has helped to transform the treatment of behavioral problems from impersonal
interventions at large institutions to caring relationships in home and
community settings. The Teaching-Family Model has also demonstrated how
well-researched treatment programs can be implemented on a large scale. Most
importantly, the Teaching-Family Model has given hope that young people with
even the most difficult problems or behaviors can improve the quality of their
lives and make contributions to society.
Practical Application
In recent years, the Teaching-Family Model has been expanded to include foster
care facilities, home treatment settings, and even schools. The Teaching-Family
Model has also been adapted to accommodate the needs of physically, emotionally,
and sexually abused children; emotionally disturbed and autistic children and
adults; medically fragile children; and adults with disabilities. Successful
centers that have been active for over 30 years include the Bringing it All Back
Home Study Center in North Carolina, the Houston Achievement Place in Texas, and
the Girls and Boys Town in Nebraska. Other Teaching-Family Model organizations
are in Alberta (Canada), Arkansas, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
and Wisconsin.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Model, relationships, treatment | Comments Off


BELIEVING YOU CAN GET SMARTER MAKES YOU SMARTER



Thinking about intelligence as changeable and malleable, rather than stable and
fixed, results in greater academic achievement, especially for people whose
groups bear the burden of negative stereotypes about their intelligence.
Findings

Can people get smarter? Are some racial or social groups smarter than others?
Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, many people believe that intelligence
is fixed, and, moreover, that some racial and social groups are inherently
smarter than others. Merely evoking these stereotypes about the intellectual
inferiority of these groups (such as women and Blacks) is enough to harm the
academic perfomance of members of these groups. Social psychologist Claude
Steele and his collaborators (2002) have called this phenomenon “stereotype
threat.”

Yet social psychologists Aronson, Fried, and Good (2001) have developed a
possible antidote to stereotype threat. They taught African American and
European American college students to think of intelligence as changeable,
rather than fixed – a lesson that many psychological studies suggests is true.
Students in a control group did not receive this message. Those students who
learned about IQ’s malleability improved their grades more than did students who
did not receive this message, and also saw academics as more important than did
students in the control group. Even more exciting was the finding that Black
students benefited more from learning about the malleable nature of intelligence
than did White students, showing that this intervention may successfully
counteract stereotype threat.
Significance

This research showed a relatively easy way to narrow the Black-White academic
achievement gap. Realizing that one’s intelligence may be improved may actually
improve one’s intelligence, especially for those whose groups are targets of
stereotypes alleging limited intelligence (e.g., Blacks, Latinos, and women in
math domains.)
Practical Application

Blackwell, Dweck, and Trzesniewski (2002) recently replicated and applied this
research with seventh-grade students in New York City. During the first eight
weeks of the spring term, these students learned about the malleability of
intelligence by reading and discussing a science-based article that described
how intelligence develops. A control group of seventh-grade students did not
learn about intelligence’s changeability, and instead learned about memory and
mnemonic strategies. As compared to the control group, students who learned
about intelligence’s malleability had higher academic motivation, better
academic behavior, and better grades in mathematics. Indeed, students who were
members of vulnerable groups (e.g., those who previously thought that
intelligence cannot change, those who had low prior mathematics achievement, and
female students) had higher mathematics grades following the
intelligence-is-malleable intervention, while the grades of similar students in
the control group declined. In fact, girls who received the intervention matched
and even slightly exceeded the boys in math grades, whereas girls in the control
group performed well below the boys.

These findings are especially important because the actual instruction time for
the intervention totaled just three hours. Therefore, this is a very
cost-effective method for improving students’ academic motivation and
achievement.
Cited Research

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2001). Reducing the effects of stereotype
threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1-13.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002), Contending with group
image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Mark P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 379-440. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Additional Sources

Blackwell, L., Dweck, C., & Trzesniewski, K. (2002). Achievement across the
adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Manuscript in
preparation.

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged perfomance, psychologist, successfully |
Comments Off


 * RECENT POSTS
   
   * Increasing Student Success Through Instruction in Self-Determination
   * How to Build a Better Educational System: Jigsaw Classrooms
   * Have Your Children Had Their Anti-Smoking Shots?
   * Early Intervention Can Improve Low-Income Children’s Cognitive Skills and
     Academic Achievement
   * Family-Like Environment Better for Troubled Children and Teens


 * PARTNER LINKS
   
   


 * ARCHIVES
   
   Select Month July 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January
   2021

Copyright © 2024 ighootio.info - All rights reserved