Research Circles: Supporting the Scholarship of Junior Faculty

This article describes and assesses “Research Circles” as a mechanism for enhancing faculty collegiality and research. Recently established on our campus, these circles, composed of three to four faculty members, have had a particularly powerful effect on the new faculty members' adjustment to their tenure track positions, especially since they entered a context that might otherwise have been challenging: a new interdisciplinary upper-division campus with high expectations for teaching excellence. Based on the end-of-year evaluations, journals, and focus groups, the co-authors described themes that emerged from their participation in these circles. Circle participation not only facilitated faculty writing throughout their first year, but it also fostered the development of an interdisciplinary community which nurtured creativity and risk taking in writing. All authors are currently teaching in Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences (IAS) at The University of Washington, Bothell (UWB). Except for Diane Gillespie, Professor and Associate Director of IAS, all other authors are Assistant Professors in IAS. Diane Gillespie received her Ph.D. in cultural and psychological studies in education from The University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Her interests include critical pedagogy, narrative psychology, and cultural diversity. Nives Dolšak received a joint Ph.D. in public policy and political science from Indiana University. Her interests include public policy, environmental policy, and international relations. Bruce Kochis, received his Ph.D. in Slavic languages & literatures at the University of Michigan. He focuses on global human rights policy, discourse analysis, and political theory. Ron Krabill received his Ph.D. in sociology and historical studies from New School for Social Research. His interests include comparative media, politics and social movements with a special emphasis on South Africa, as well as the study of peace, conflict, social justice, and human rights. Kari Lerum received her Ph.D. in sociology from The University of Washington. Her interests include culture, organizations, sexuality, qualitative methods, and visual studies. Anne Peterson received her Ph.D. from Washington University. Her interests include urban politics and policy and the distribution of natural resources at the local level. Elizabeth Thomas received her Ph.D. in psychology from The University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign. Her interests include community-based resources for adolescent development, cultural psychology, and the social context of learning.     

Factors affecting treatment acceptability for psychostimulant medication versus psychoeducational intervention

Future teachers' judgments of acceptability for two common treatments for children with the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) label were examined. One hundred forty‐four pre‐service teachers were grouped according to their high school location at graduation (urban vs. rural) and were randomly assigned to read one of four vignettes. The content of the vignettes was held constant but label (ADHD vs no label) and treatments (special education placement vs. Ritalin) were varied. Results indicated a significant main effect on treatment acceptability for High School Location, a Label × Treatment interaction on the attention problems variable, a main effect for Label on the social problems variable, and a High School Location × Treatment interaction on the social problems variable. A number of implications can be made. Observer characteristics such as urban or rural high school experiences may influence judgments about a labeled child more than the characteristics of the child being observed. In this study, the ADHD label evoked greater expectations of attentional difficulties even when the pattern of functioning was similar to nonlabeled children. On the other hand, children with the ADHD label were judged as having better social functioning, which suggests that the ADHD label allows observers to attribute behavioral difficulties or the social problems displayed by these children to some factor that is outside the control of the child, or for which the child does not have personal responsibility. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Weaving Together Undergraduate Research, Mentoring of Junior Faculty, and Assessment: The Case of an Interdisciplinary Program

Scholars in teaching and learning value student research and program assessment as strategies to promote excellence in undergraduate education. Yet, in practice, each can be complex and difficult to sustain. This case study demonstrates how undergraduate research, mentoring of junior faculty, and assessment can be integrated in ways that enrich the educational experiences of students and the professional development of faculty and improve research on teaching and learning. The authors describe a lively undergraduate research project that became tied to the mentoring of assistant professors and then to program assessment. We conclude with recommendations for implementing such a project in other academic settings. Elizabeth Thomas is Assistant Professor in the Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington Bothell. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and teaches courses on inquiry in the social sciences, community psychology, and psychology and the arts. Her research examines sociocultural contexts for learning and development with a particular focus on the role of the arts and the potential of participatory action research strategies. Diane Gillespie is Professor and Associate Director of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences (IAS) at The University of Washington, Bothell, received her Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln in Cultural and Psychological Studies in Education. She teaches multicultural social science courses and qualitative research. Her recent publications explore the importance of narrative for reflective teaching and learning, learning in small groups, and the role of human rights in nonformal education.     

Adults who learn differently: Help through a volunteer literacy program

In adult literacy programs today, well-intentioned but inadequately prepared volunteer tutors are being matched with learning disabled adult students without the benefit of receiving training from experts in the field of language/learning disabilities. The collaboration of adult literacy providers and learning specialists is obviously the most resourceful, yet most untried, solution to a problem that is plaguing volunteer-based programs across the country: meeting the needs of learning disabled adults. One adult literacy program—READ/San Diego of the San Diego Public Library—recognized that its volunteer tutors needed training in special instructional methods to teach adults who evidence learning disabilities. Accordingly, the program’s administrator obtained the services of specialists to develop a learning disabilities tutor-training module. This article (1) presents an overview of preservice volunteer training at READ/San Diego; (2) discusses informal assessment procedures that help identify possible language/learning disabilities in adults and provide valuable information for instructional planning; and (3) describes selected multisensory teaching techniques designed especially for adults who “learn differently.”