Towards a more inclusive approach to intervention research: The case of research in learning disabilities

International Journal of Inclusive Education

Volumn 16, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1019-1032

  Dudley Marling, Curt ^a   Gurn, Alex ^a  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

curriculum and instruction; inclusive education; special education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867517811     PISSN: 13603116     EISSN: 14645173     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2010.538866     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Athaneses, S. In press. Research as praxis: Documenting the dialectical relationship between theory and practice. In Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts, ed. D. Lapp and D. Fisher. 3rd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis.
2. Dudley-Marling, C. 2004. The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 482-90.
3. Dudley-Marling, C., and A. Gurn. 2010. Troubling the foundations of special education: Examining the myth of the normal curve. In The myth of the normal curve, ed. C. Dudley-Marling and A. Gurn, 9-23. New York: Peter Lang.
4. Bradley, J.V. 1977. A common situation conducive to bizarre distribution shapes. The American Statistician 31, no. 4: 147-50.
5. Cochran-Smith, M., and S.L. Lytle. 1999. Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in community. Review of Research in Education 24: 249-305.
6. Cochran-Smith, M., and S.L. Lytle. 2009. Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Coe, R. 2002. It's the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, September 12-14, in University of Exeter, England. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm (accessed April 8, 2008).
8. Cohen, J. 1969. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
9. Danforth, S. 2009. The incomplete child: An intellectual history of learning disabilities. New York: Peter Lang.
10. Danziger, K. 1990. Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Davis, B., and D. Sumara. 2010. Decentralizations and redistributions: A complex reading of normality. In Living on the boundaries of the normal curve, ed. C. Dudley-Marling and A. Gurn, 39-51. New York: Peter Lang.
12. Duffy, G.G., and J.V Hoffman. 1999. In pursuit of an illusion: The search for a perfect method. The Reading Teacher 53: 10-16.
13. Dunlap, K. 1935. The average animal. Journal of Comparative Psychology 19: 1-3.
14. Eisenhart, M. 2005. Science plus: A response to the responses to scientific research in education. Teachers College Record 10, no. 1: 52-8.
15. Erikson, F. 2005. Arts, humanities, and sciences in educational research and social engineering in federal education policy. Teachers College Record 107, no. 1: 4-9.
16. Fashing, J., and T. Goertzel. 1981. The myth of the normal curve: A theoretical critique and examination of its role in teaching and research. Humanity & Society 5, no. 1: 14-31.
17. Gallagher, D. 2010. Educational researchers and the making of normal people. In The myth of the normal curve, ed. C. Dudley-Marling and A. Gurn, 25-38. New York: Peter Lang.
18. Gallagher, D.J. 1998. The scientific knowledge base of special education: Do we know what we think we know? Exceptional Children 64, no. 4: 493-502.
19. Gladwell, M. 2006. Million-dollar murray. The New Yorker, February 13.
20. Igo, L.B., P.J. Riccomini, R.H. Bruning, and G.G. Pope. 2006. How should middle-school students with LD approach online note taking? A mixed-methods study. Learning Disability Quarterly 29, no. 2: 89-100.
21. Ives, B. 2003. Effect size use in studies of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 36: 490-504.
22. Linan-Thompson, S., D.P. Bryant, S.V. Dickson, and K. Kouzekanani 2005. Spanish literacy instruction for at-risk kindergarten students. Remedial and Special Education 26, no. 4: 236-44.
23. Manset-Williamson, G., and J.M. Nelson. 2005. Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly 28, no. 1: 59-74.
24. Micceri, T. 1989. The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin 105, no. 1: 156-66.
25. O'Connor, R.E., D. Fulmer, K.R. Harty, and K.M. Bell. 2005. Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38: 440-55.
26. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 2009. Twenty-eighth annual report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
27. Reid, D.K. 2001. Mantague and Rinali and Meltzer, Katzir-Cohen, Miller and Roditi: A critical commentary. Learning Disability Quarterly 24: 199-205.
28. Reid, D.K., and J.W. Valle. 2004a. The discursive practice of learning disability: Implications for instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning Disabilities 37, no. 6: 466-81.
29. Reid, D.K., and J.W. Valle. 2004b. Learning dis/ability as the intersection of competing discourses: Implications for classrooms, parents, and research. In Learning about learning disabilities, ed. B.Y.L. Wong, 513-34. 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press.
30. Roth, F.P., G.A. Troia, C.K. Worthington, and D. Handy. 2006. Promoting awareness of sounds in speech (PASS): The effects of intervention and stimulus characteristics on the blending performance of preschool children with communication impairments. Learning Disability Quarterly 29: 67-88.
31. Sartori, R. 2006. The bell curve in psychological research and practice: Myth or reality? Quality and Quantity 40, no. 3: 407-18.
32. Social Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge). 2009. http://apps.isiknowledge.com. proxy.bc.edu/WOS-GeneralSearch-input.do?product= WOS&search-mode=General Search&SID= 4Cll8hC1PJOM58jlpko&preferencesSaved=.
33. Surgan, S. 2001. Is random error useful for developmental psychology? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2, no. 3. http://www.qualitativeresearch. net/fqs-texte/3-01/3-01surgan-e.htm (accessed on August 15, 2007).
34. Vellutino, F.R., D.M. Scanlon, S. Small, and D.P. Fanuele. 2006. Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 39: 157-69.
35. Walberg, H.J., B.F. Strykowski, E. Rovai, and S.S. Hung. 1984. Exceptional performance. Review of Educational Research 54, no. 1: 87-112.
36. Wanzek, J., and S. Vaughn. 2008. Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41: 126-42.
37. Wilkinson, L., and the Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs. 1999. Statistical methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist 54: 594-604.