FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2130366890> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2130366890 startingPage "53" @default.
• W2130366890 abstract "The notion that individual differences can and must be accom modated by modifying instructional methods is a central tenet of special education. When I was a special education teacher, I advocated an eclectic approach, meaning that each student needed to be taught in a different way depending on his or her individual characteristics. Over the course of TO years, how ever, I realized that, regardless of student characteristics, some approaches worked, and some didn't. I now have a better understanding of the problems that troubled me as a teacher. With the use of learning styles gaining popularity in general education, I fear that the mistakes made in special education will be repeated and learners, especially low-performing stu dents, will suffer. Learning styles is a type of aptitude-treatment interaction. Aptitude-treatment interactions suggest that a person's distinc tive characteristics or aptitudes (in this case, learning style) can be matched to a specific treatment (instructional method) resulting in a statistical interaction (a more effective outcome than could otherwise have been achieved). But numerous reviews of the literature have failed to find support for aptitudetreatment interactions. They have not been supported by research in educational psychology (Berlinger and Cahen 1973, Cronbach and Snow 1977, Miller 1981) or in special education (Kampwirth and Bates 1980, Kavale and Forness 1987, Tarver and Dawson 1978, Ysseldyke 1973). Learning styles are often used to determine methods of initial reading instruction. Frequently, holistic instruction is recominmended for young, inexperienced readers, whereas phonics is proposed for better readers (Carbo 1987, Carbo et ai. 1986, Carbo and Hodges 1988). This makes little sense. It seems redundant to provide phonics instruction to students who have already mastered the code. Learning styles advocates also recommend holistic instruction for low-performing students, suggesting that the cause of their reading disabilities is a mismatch between their learning styles and the instructional methods (Carbo 1987, Carbo and Hodges 1988). However, reading disabled students have difficulty with the phonological aspects of language (Bradley and Bryant 1983; Liberman and Shanlcweiler 1979, 1985; Stanovich 1982, 1986) and do not unravel the decoding mystery by themselves. Holistic ap proaches do not give them a clue. Thus, students' chances for success in school may be jeopardized by teachers who use learning styles as a basis for determining methods of initial reading instruction. People are different, and it is good practice to recognize and accommodate individual differences. It is also good practice to present information in a variety of ways through more than one modality, but it is not wise to categorize learners and prescribe methods solely on the basis of tests with questionable techni cal qualities. For example, the Carbo, Dunn, and Dunn (1986) model of learning styles, which currently seems to be gaining the most momentum in general education, promotes two assessment instruments: the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn et al. 1985) and the Heading Style Inventory (Carbo 1983). Both struments suffer from inadequate reliability and validity (Stahl 1988). The idea of learning styles is appealing, but a critical examination of this approach should cause educators to be skeptical.D" @default.
• W2130366890 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2130366890 creator A5021696795 @default.
• W2130366890 date "1990-01-01" @default.
• W2130366890 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2130366890 title "What We Know about Learning Styles from Research in Special Education." @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1505696524 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1551916578 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1571027937 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1736665567 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1901412495 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1980909828 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W1995453601 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W2036161103 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W2049826494 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W2083074014 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W2112697742 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W2145323472 @default.
• W2130366890 cites W329545750 @default.
• W2130366890 hasPublicationYear "1990" @default.
• W2130366890 type Work @default.
• W2130366890 sameAs 2130366890 @default.
• W2130366890 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W2130366890 countsByYear W21303668902013 @default.
• W2130366890 countsByYear W21303668902016 @default.
• W2130366890 countsByYear W21303668902020 @default.
• W2130366890 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2130366890 hasAuthorship W2130366890A5021696795 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C10050518 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C2777603413 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C2780586970 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C2781285556 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C28858896 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C48561166 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConcept C88610354 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C10050518 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C138496976 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C138885662 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C145420912 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C15744967 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C19417346 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C2777603413 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C2780586970 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C2780876879 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C2781285556 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C28858896 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C41895202 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C48561166 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C542102704 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C554936623 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C77805123 @default.
• W2130366890 hasConceptScore W2130366890C88610354 @default.
• W2130366890 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2130366890 hasLocation W21303668901 @default.
• W2130366890 hasOpenAccess W2130366890 @default.
• W2130366890 hasPrimaryLocation W21303668901 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1205592881 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W123648427 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1481972338 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1531280022 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1547578779 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1825959533 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1894875627 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W1901412495 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W2043976768 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W206462969 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W2170644967 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W218658791 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W2374900134 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W269113502 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W288796052 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W2992030520 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W54677752 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W74649682 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W2182157450 @default.
• W2130366890 hasRelatedWork W2620619270 @default.
• W2130366890 hasVolume "48" @default.
• W2130366890 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2130366890 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2130366890 magId "2130366890" @default.
• W2130366890 workType "article" @default.