Misconceptions in Van den Broeck's representation of misconceptions about learning disability research

The methods and conclusions of Van den Broeck (in this issue) are evaluated from two perspectives: (a) statistical considerations and (b) theoretical models of IQ and achievement, specifically reading achievement. We consider the statistical model proposed by Van den Broeck for the regression-based discrepancy model (RDM) to be either irrelevant or conceptually inconsistent with current models of IQ and achievement. The resulting simulation produced exemplar cases that are not realistic in terms of practice. The theoretical representations of IQ and achievement were, in our understanding, inconsistent with contemporary models of either. We suggest that acceptable models support the use of the RDM as it has been proposed by us and by others as one component of the determination of the presence or absence of a learning disability.     

Patterns in how pre-service elementary teachers formulate evidence-based claims about student cognition

Large-scale, robust implementation of teacher data-driven decision making (DDDM) is a challenging endeavor, impeded by numerous organizational, and teacher, factors. One well-documented barrier to teacher DDDM is underdevelopment of teacher data literacy. This study examines common errors made by pre-service elementary teachers in the formulation of evidence-based claims about student cognition (e.g. student strengths and weaknesses relative to content mastery) in a United States of America context. Teachers in the sample commonly made several errors in the articulation of evidence-based claims based on classroom assessments, including providing nonspecific, irrelevant evidence for claims, and misinterpreting statistical evidence. Specific implications for pre-service teacher education and future research are discussed.     

Introduction to the special issue ‘How adolescents read and learn on the Web: internal and external factors (Introducción al número especial ‘Cómo leen y aprenden los adolescentes en la red: factores internos y externos’)

ABSTRACT

The World Wide Web has become a major information resource for adolescents (i.e., 10–19 years of age), offering an unprecedented amount of information on virtually any topic. While the Web can potentially offer new learning opportunities, it also presents several challenges. Reading and learning on the Web requires a set of advanced literacy skills that adolescents do not necessarily possess and need to develop in order to effectively deal with the complexity of information encountered online. This special issue brings together five empirical articles and a discussion paper that examine internal and external factors that are beneficial (or detrimental) to adolescents’ reading and learning on the Web, and contribute to explaining how young learners develop complex literacy skills. Theoretically, the special issue contributes to the conceptualization of what researchers refer to as ‘multiple documents literacy’. In practice, it informs researchers and educators of emerging empirical results regarding adolescents’ information behaviour, as well as on instructional strategies that can be effective for developing adolescents’ literacy skills.     

A two‐component growth mindset intervention for young people with SEND

Interventions to increase the endorsement of the growth mindset (the belief that intelligence can be improved with effort) have been successfully implemented in schools. However, they rarely target children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), a group who are more likely to endorse a fixed mindset, experience lower academic self‐concept and academic resilience, and be at risk of negative stereotyped attitudes. This quasi‐experimental study implemented a 10‐week PSHE programme as well as dedicated lessons with adapted classroom practices, for example, task framing and feedback, to promote the growth mindset message to young people with SEND (N = 18). Analyses of pre‐ to post‐intervention measures demonstrated moderate evidence for the intervention having increased students’ endorsement of the growth mindset, as well as anecdotal evidence for increased academic self‐concept, academic resilience and positive attitudes to disability. However, these effects were not sustained in follow‐up measures conducted 7 weeks post‐intervention. The intervention did not improve students’ academic performance. Although preliminary, findings demonstrate the viability of growth mindset interventions for children and young people with SEND, but suggest that interventions should be maintained for longer‐lasting effects.