Cultural sensitivity: How important is it for effective home visits?

The implementation of home visits as a technique for involving parents has recently resurfaced. This educational trend has received additional emphasis as the nation attempts to meet the national education goals — particularly the first goal, which states, By the year 2000, all children will enter school ready to learn.Sally A. LaPoint is an Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of South Carolina at Beaufort. She also administers the At Risk Early Childhood Family Initiative, located at the historic Penn Center on St. Helena Island, South Carolina. Gloria S. Boutte is an Assistant Professor, Kevin J. Swick is a Professor, and Mac H. Brown is an Associate Professor, Early Childhood Education, at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.     

Impaired Students: Applying the Therapeutic Process Model to Graduate Training Programs

This article updates and adds to the literature on graduate trainee impairment provided by L. Forrest, N. Elman, S. Gizara, and T. Vacha‐Haase (1999) in their comprehensive literature review. Based on recommendations by Forrest et al., a program model for dealing with impaired trainees is proposed. The 5‐step therapeutic process model includes (a) informed consent, (b) intake and assessment, (c) evaluation, (d) treatment planning and follow‐up, and (e) termination. Each step is explained within the context of graduate training programs, and key points to consider are discussed.     

The Right Tools for the Wrong Job: a response to Leach and Siddall on parental involvement in the teaching of reading with particular reference to Pause,Prompt and Praise tutoring

Leach and Siddall (1990) present a comparison study of four methods of involving parents in the teaching of reading. It is argued here that one of the procedures they employed, ‘Pause, Prompt and Praise’, was used inappropriately with a group of children for whom it was not designed. Consequently, any conclusions drawn from this study about the relative effectiveness of ‘Pause, Prompt and Praise’ compared with the other procedures are unwarranted.     

Some Reservations About the Use of the Analysis of Co‐variance in Educational Research: a response to Dugard and Todman

Dugard and Todman (this issue), in this journal, present convincing arguments for the greater utilisation by educational researchers of the analysis of co‐variance when analysing data from experiments employing pre‐test‐post‐test control group designs. We applaud this initiative, but caution against too readily employing co‐variance procedures where it may be inappropriate to do so and repeat some of the cautions concerning ‘pitfalls for the unwary’ previously voiced (Lambourne & Wheldall, 1979).     

A content analysis of research published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching from 1985 through 1989

To determine if actual practice was consistent with commonly recommended research methods and procedures, this study examined 130 studies reported over a 5-year period in three volumes of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST). The results were consistent with similar previous analyses (Shaver & Norton, 1980a, 1980b; Wallen & Fraenkel, 1988a) and indicate that appropriate generalizations beyond the confines of the reported studies may be impossible for most (64%) of the JRST studies surveyed. The findings also show that replication studies, which could be employed to offset deficiencies in generalizability, were not commonly encountered (3%) in these 130 reports. In addition, the study results indicate that many researchers (48%) do not properly restrict their conclusions based on the limits imposed by the accessible populations and samples used; nor do they typically provide possible alternative explanations for the outcomes obtained (76%). These findings prompt the following recommendations: 1. A greater awareness and use of replication as a check on generalizability should be encouraged by the science education community. 2. Clearly defined populations (target and accessible) and fully described samples warrant increased attention as report components from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members of JRST. 3. In light of the difficulties inherent in effecting random selection in educational settings, a greater emphasis should be placed on recognizing the limits that the underlying assumptions of inferential statistics place on research conclusions. The results of this study indicate that the methodological quality of published science education research should remain a concern for both practitioners and readers.     

Nonlongitudinal Estimation of Growth Curve Parameters: The Cohort Growth Model

The cohort growth model (CGM) is a method for estimating the parameters of a latent growth model (LGM) based on cross-sectional data. The CGM models the interindividual differences in the growth rate, and it models how subjects’ growth rate is related to their initial status. We derive model identification for the CGM and illustrate, in a simulation study, that the CGM provides unbiased parameter estimates in most simulation conditions. Based on empirical data we compare the estimates of the CGM with the estimates of the LGM. The results were comparable for both models. Although the estimates of the (co)-variances were different, the estimates of both models led to similar conclusions on the developmental change. Finally, we discuss the advantages and limitations of the CGM, and we provide recommendations for its use in empirical research.