Academic Risks Research Articles

The Association of Intervention Receipt With Speech-Language Profiles and Social-Demographic Variables

This study explored the effects of oral communication and demographic characteristics on intervention receipt. Oral communication characteristics included speech-sound production and receptive and expressive language status. Demographic characteristics included race, sex, residential strata, and neighborhood income level. With regard to speech-sound production and language, 1,929 kindergartners were divided into four speech-language subgroups: speech impaired only, language impaired only, speech and language impaired, and normal in both speech and language. In terms of expressive and receptive language modalities, the group of children was divided into four expressive-receptive subgroups: expressive impaired only, receptive impaired only, expressive and receptive impaired, and normal in both expressive and receptive language. Associations of speech versus language and expressive language versus receptive language with intervention receipt were examined in both categorical and continuous manners. Results showed that speech had a stronger effect on intervention receipt than language, but that this difference could not be explained by the effect of speech on social and academic functions compared to that of language. Expressive language had a stronger effect on intervention receipt than receptive language (when treated as continuous variables). This also could not be explained by the effect of these variables on social and academic function. These results suggest that the current referral and service delivery system depends on communication characteristics that are expressive and, thus, most readily observable. This referral and service delivery approach, however, fails to identify children that have the greatest social and academic risks. Methods of reversing this trend were discussed. Among all demographic variables examined, only sex is related to intervention receipt, that is, boys were more likely to have received intervention.

Straight Talk about Research to Geoscience Teachers

To date, much of what has taken place in the geoscience classroom is predetermined, routine learning experiences that all too often have little scientific merit. Emphasizing cognitive (and constructivist) research-based approaches can help make geoscience teaching more consistent with the spirit and character of scientific inquiry and values. The geosciences are especially endowed with opportunities to motivate students to engage in high-level thinking, including problem-solving activities, in contrast to the often-observed tedium of non-thinking students memorizing and regurgitating boring and useless science knowledge of questionable utility. Motivating students to study geoscience in such a way that they will apply knowledge, processes, and problem-solving skills to their person and civic lives is difficult. But it is mandatory for good geoscience learning - learning that goes beyond lower-level thinking skills like recalling and recognizing on tests exactly what was presented in class. Recent research on motivation suggests that we need to encourage and praise students for working hard, solving challenging tasks, and putting forth a reasonable effort. We also need to encourage students who are adventurous in coming up with solutions where they take academic risks, show patience and persistence, and work toward being independent, self-confident learners.

Using Community Adults as Advocates or Mentors for At-Risk Middle School Students: A Two-Year Evaluation of Project RAISE

The effects on selected student outcomes are evaluated after two years of operation of Project RAISE, a multifaceted approach featuring outside adults as school-based advocates and one-on-one mentors for at-risk students at seven middle schools. Positive effects are found on improving student attendance and report card grades in English, but not on promotion rates or standardized test scores. The effects, though sizable, were not sufficient to neutralize the academic risks with which students entered the program. The positive results were primarily due to three of the seven sites. Some evidence supported interpretations that, although strong one-on-one mentoring is not an essential component of an effective program that uses outside adults to assist at-risk middle school students, the RAISE model is much more likely to show positive effects when one-on-one mentoring has been strongly implemented. Success may also depend on the size and composition of the student group to be served. Issues are raised about roles and responsibilities of adult advocates or mentors. Schools throughout the nation are engaged in programs that use adults from the community to help at-risk youth make steady progress through the middle and secondary grades and complete high school. Two general approaches-mentoring and advocacy-are widely viewed as promising mechanisms to provide sustained, goal-directed support to students. Mentoring is commonly defined as a one-to-one relationship between a caring adult and a student who needs support to achieve academic, career, social, or personal goals. Mentor-student relationships can develop naturally or within structured interventions through activities