Effects of Manipulative Instruction on Solving Area and Perimeter Problems by Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract. A multiple baseline design was employed to test the effect of manipulative instruction on the perimeter and area problem‐solving performance of middle and high school students who had been diagnosed with LD in the area of mathematics. Modeling, prompting/guided practice, and independent practice in conjunction with manipulative training were employed to teach both perimeter and area problem‐solving skills. Analysis of data revealed that the students rapidly acquired the problem‐solving‐skills, maintained these skills over a two‐month period, and transferred these skills to a paper and pencil problem‐solving format. This research extends previous findings by revealing that use of concrete manipulatives promotes the long‐term maintenance of skills.     

Indianapolis I3: the third generation Integrated Advanced Information Management Systems.

In 2001, the Regenstrief Institute for Health Care and the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) began an IAIMS planning effort to create a vision and a tactical plan for the first Integrated Advanced Information Management Systems (IAIMS) implementation to cross a large area and include unaffiliated institutions. A number of elements made this planning effort unique. Among these elements were the existence of a network infrastructure that supported the Indianapolis Network for Patient Care, the existence of a mature medical informatics program at the Regenstrief Institute, and the existence of a wide-area knowledge network fostered by the IUSM libraries. However, the leadership for a strong information technology role in the IUSM that could promote collaboration in support of education and research across the diverse Indianapolis hospital systems had been lacking. By bringing together various groups, each with a commitment to improve health care quality and public health across the Indianapolis metropolitan area, regardless of individual institutional affiliation, the strategic directions for I3-Indianapolis IAIMS Initiative have been defined and the foundations for a third generation IAIMS construct have been laid in Indianapolis, Indiana.     

How we done it good: Research through design as a legitimate methodology for librarianship

“How we done it good” publications—a genre concerning project-based approaches that describe how (and sometimes why) something was done—are often rebuked in the library research community for lacking traditional scientific validity, reliability, and generalizability. While scientific methodologies may be a common approach to research and inquiry, they are not the only methodological paradigms. This research posits that the how we done it good paradigm in librarianship reflects a valid and legitimate approach to research. By drawing on the concept of research through design, this study shows how these how we done it good projects reflect design methodologies which draw rigor from process, invention, relevance, and extensibility rather than replicability, generalizability, and predictability. Although these projects implicitly reflect research through design, the methodology is not yet explicitly harnessed in librarianship. More support for these types of projects can be achieved by making the legitimate design framework more explicit and increasing support from publication venues.     

Could scientists use Altmetric.com scores to predict longer term citation counts?

Altmetrics from Altmetric.com are widely used by publishers and researchers to give earlier evidence of attention than citation counts. This article assesses whether Altmetric.com scores are reliable early indicators of likely future impact and whether they may also reflect non-scholarly impacts. A preliminary factor analysis suggests that the main altmetric indicator of scholarly impact is Mendeley reader counts, with weaker news, informational and social network discussion/promotion dimensions in some fields. Based on a regression analysis of Altmetric.com data from November 2015 and Scopus citation counts from October 2017 for articles in 30 narrow fields, only Mendeley reader counts are consistent predictors of future citation impact. Most other Altmetric.com scores can help predict future impact in some fields. Overall, the results confirm that early Altmetric.com scores can predict later citation counts, although less well than journal impact factors, and the optimal strategy is to consider both Altmetric.com scores and journal impact factors. Altmetric.com scores can also reflect dimensions of non-scholarly impact in some fields.     

Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science?

Dimensions is a partly free scholarly database launched by Digital Science in January 2018. Dimensions includes journal articles and citation counts, making it a potential new source of impact data. This article explores the value of Dimensions from an impact assessment perspective with an examination of Food Science research 2008–2018 and a random sample of 10,000 Scopus articles from 2012. The results include high correlations between citation counts from Scopus and Dimensions (0.96 by narrow field in 2012) as well as similar average counts. Almost all Scopus articles with DOIs were found in Dimensions (97% in 2012). Thus, the scholarly database component of Dimensions seems to be a plausible alternative to Scopus and the Web of Science for general citation analyses and for citation data in support of some types of research evaluations.