Neuropsychological classification and treatment of dyslexia.

Evidence shows that initial and advanced learning to read are predominantly mediated by the right and left cerebral hemispheres, respectively. Premature reliance on left-hemispheric reading strategies may result in L-type dyslexia, characterized by hurried and inaccurate reading. P-type dyslexia, characterized by a slow and fragmented style of reading, may result from the inability to shift from the predominant generation of right-hemispheric reading strategies to the predominant generation of left-hemispheric reading strategies. Results of investigations concerning the validity of the L/P-typology are discussed, as are the reading effects of hemisphere-specific and hemisphere-alluding stimulation in children with L- and P-type dyslexia.     

Ensuring Content‐Area Learning by Secondary Students with Learning Disabilities

Three factors tied with secondary student success in content‐area reading are demonstrated: (a) validated teacher‐focused and student‐focused interventions, (b) integrated and comprehensive service delivery systems, and (c) well‐designed, data‐based professional developmental programs. Difficult challenges face secondary students with LD and their teachers with regard to these students’ participation and success in required general education classes. Recently, instructional methods and materials have been developed and validated for promoting these students’ success. Some of them focus on how general education teachers plan and teach their content‐area courses; others focus on giving students the strategies they need to respond independently to the demands of their courses. This article describes these instructional methods, a service‐delivery model for implementing these interventions in secondary schools, and professional‐development mechanisms and administrative support that must be in place for the model to be maintained effectively.     

Collaborative Research: Policy and the Management of Knowledge Creation in UK Universities

Collaboration in research activity is now the rule not the exception. It is encouraged by government, funding bodies and research councils. However, the concept of collaboration is difficult to define. It occurs at many different levels, driven by a complex research system-policy dynamic. Three different models of collaboration – inter-personal, team and corporate – are identified, each with their own rationale, structure, benefits and costs. The paper examines the institutional implications of these models. It argues that institutions and individual researchers conceptualise and operationalise research collaboration in different ways. Although vital to institutional mission, collaborative research is rarely mapped by senior managers with any precision. In general, institutional approaches to the management of collaborative research lag behind the policy rhetoric. The paper concludes with an overview of the key dilemmas for institutional strategists and policy makers posed by the shift towards more collaborative approaches to research.     

Expectations,observations, and violations: Comparing their effects on course ratings

Knowledgeable observers generally agree that students can give reasonably unbiased assessments of their classes, as long as proper instruments and procedures are used. These same observers agree, however, that more research is needed to understand the subtle dynamics which affect evaluations. Students' expectations (obtained on the first day) and the violation of these expectations are two possible factors. Their effects on students' final interest and future intentions are compared with students' actual reports of the class given at the end of the semester (n=196). Regression analysis using a simultaneous entry of expectations, expectancy violations, and final reports shows that students' reports at the end of the course account for almost all of the explained variance in the course rating items.