Self-Concept, Higher-Order Thinking, and Teaching: Commentary on the Findings of TwoMeta-AnalysesAuthor(s): James M. Kauffman, Courtney P. Davis, Jennifer J. Jakubecy and Kristin A.LundgrenSource: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 101, No. 3, Special Issue: InstructionalInterventions for Students with Learning Disabilities (Jan., 2001), pp. 355-357Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002252 .

Accessed: 05/07/2014 20:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheElementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 67.81.88.129 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 20:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Self-Concept, Higher- Order Thinking, and Teaching: Commentary on the Findings of Two Meta- Analyses

James M. Kauffman Courtney P. Davis Jennifer J. Jakubecy University of Virginia

Kristin A. Lundgren Vanderbilt University

The Elementary School Journal Volume 101, Number 3 ? 2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2001/10103-0007$02.00

The two meta-analyses on which we com- ment (Elbaum & Vaughn, and Swanson, 2001, in this issue) are consistent with the scientific evaluation of educational meth- ods. A basic principle of scientific research is replication-repetition of a procedure under various circumstances and with a va-

riety of learners, with careful experimental design and measurement to test the robust- ness of an effect. Each replication, particu- larly if it includes slight changes to test the outcomes, adds to the accumulation of evi- dence that an educational procedure is or is not effective under particular circum- stances or for a particular category of learners. This is the kind of inquiry that guides the practice of medicine and many other interventions in human problems. The accumulation of knowledge about a

given problem and its potential solutions obtained by a series of careful investiga- tions, including meta-analyses, should guide the practice of education, as we and the works we cite suggest.

"Theories" disconnected from practice and ideas promoted in the face of contrary evidence, better known as ideologies, not only deserve the scorn they receive in fic- tion (e.g., Roth, 2000) and from scientists (e.g., Feynman, 1998; Wilson, 1998) but lead to the kind of self-absorption, self-aggran- dizement, and social horrors described so ably by critics of history, literature, and education (e.g., Conquest, 2000; Shattuck, 1999). This is true whether the matter under consideration is methods of teaching or their social contexts. Shattuck (1999) com- mented about one well-known chaired pro- fessor of education who apparently prefers ideology to practices based on sound evi-

This content downloaded from 67.81.88.129 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 20:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

356 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

dence, "He, too, has betrayed an honorable

profession by trying to plunge it into a vin- dictive politics of race without having even a shadow of a program, educational or so- cial, to improve anyone's lot in life" (p. 32). Education, as noted elsewhere, should be about improving students' lots in life (Kauffman, 1999b).

We commend the authors of these two

meta-analyses for gathering and analyzing information in ways that benefit education and contribute to the understanding of practices that can improve the lives of stu- dents. Their findings are not glitzy, not par- ticularly chic, not fashionable in their post- modern obscurantism and disconnection from realities, and may, therefore, be de- scribed by some critics as old-shoe or trivial. Nevertheless, their findings support prac- tices that teachers can use with confidence. True, further research may either add to the accumulation of evidence supporting these practices or suggest a different approach. However, any suggestion that evidence should be ignored because it may in the fu- ture be contradicted is as misguided as the buffoonery that makes theory, regardless of evidence, the ultimate test of the accepta- bility of a practice.

The findings of Elbaum and Vaughn are complex, but the following generalizations seem to us particularly noteworthy:

* Interventions of any type usually have only a small effect on the self-concept of students with learning disabilities.

* Interventions designed to enhance self-concept have the greatest effect on students' academic self-perceptions.

* Counseling interventions are more ef- fective for middle and high school stu- dents with learning disabilities than for younger students.

* Academic interventions are more ef- fective for improving the self-concepts of elementary students than of high school students with learning disabil- ities.

The findings of Swanson are multifac- eted, but we find the generalizations most pertinent to teaching to be:

* The higher-order thinking of adoles- cents with learning disabilities can be improved with effective instruction, especially metacognition and compre- hension.

* Effective instruction must include (a) systematic introduction of new (to the learner) content or skills from pre- vious lessons, (b) advance organizers, and (c) extended practice.

* Discrepancy between IQ and reading achievement predicts a weaker effect for cognitive training, lending credi- bility to the discrepancy definition of learning disabilities.

We see the Elbaum and Vaughn and Swanson meta-analyses as attempts to make better sense of the world for teachers. People try to make sense of the world in a variety of ways, some ways yielding more reliable and useful insights than others. The ability to identify and use these superior ways of knowing the world provides a more trustworthy foundation for the prac- tice of a craft or profession. What has come to be known generally as "science" pro- vides this foundation for many human en- deavors in spite of the fact that science as it has come to be known is currently out of fashion in education and the humanities (see Koertge, 1998; Shattuck, 1999; Sokal & Bricmont, 1998). The abandonment of rules of evidence associated with science in favor of various postmodern or deconstructivist philosophies and preferences for alterna- tive, nonscientific constructions of reality carries enormous social costs, including the preclusion of social justice. (See Conquest [2000] and Shattuck [19991 for commentary on the effects of postmodern philosophies on politics and literature as well as on edu- cation at all levels.)

One consequence of Americans' refusal to acknowledge and act consistently on the scientific footings of teaching and learning is that "our so-called system of education is far less well planned and executed than our system of highways and of mail delivery" (Shattuck, 1999, p. 34). Carnine (2000) and Kauffman and Hallahan (1974) have argued

JANUARY 2001

This content downloaded from 67.81.88.129 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 20:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMENTARY 357

that education, including special education, would do well to adopt the more scientific

approach used in medicine and that failure to do so accounts in large measure for the

public's chronic unhappiness with the out- comes of public schooling. The processes of scientific inquiry are slow, but the gradual accretion of data supporting a hypothesis remains the primary way to better under-

standing, in spite of the misunderstanding and misapplication to social sciences and education of Kuhn's (1996) description of scientific revolutions (see Kauffman [1999a] and Shattuck [19991 for elaboration). El- baum and Vaughn and Swanson have done the profession of education and our society the favor of taking the slow but sure way of science. It is no coincidence that these re- searchers have demonstrated in their own work the higher-order thinking educators aspire to teach students in the elementary grades and in high schools.

References

Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist ef- fective practices (and what it would take to make education more like medicine). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.

Conquest, R. (2000). Reflections on a ravaged cen- tury. New York: Norton.

Elbaum, B., & Vaughn, S. (2001). School-based interventions to enhance the self-concept of

students with learning disabilities: A meta- analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101, 303- 329.

Feynman, R. P. (1998). The meaning of it all: Thoughts of a citizen-scientist. Reading, MA: Perseus.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999a). Commentary: Today's special education and its messages for to- morrow. Journal of Special Education, 32, 244- 254.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999b). What we make of dif- ference and the difference we make. Fore- word in V. L. Schwean & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of psychosocial characteristics of exceptional children (pp. ix-xiii). New York: Plenum.

Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1974). The medical model and the science of special education. Exceptional Children, 41, 97-102.

Koertge, N. (Ed.). (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revo- lutions (3d ed.). Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

Roth, P. (2000). The human stain. Boston: Hough- ton Mifflin.

Shattuck, R. (1999). Candor and perversion: Liter- ature, education, and the arts. New York: Nor- ton.

Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable non- sense: Postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science. New York: Picador.

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher- order processing. Elementary School Journal, 101, 331-348.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage.

This content downloaded from 67.81.88.129 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 20:17:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions