Issues
in Research in Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities
click here to return
to the course homepage
..
The following information is
included, either on this page or by links:
-
Course Overview:
-
course description
-
rationale
-
objectives
-
Readings:
-
required books
-
required reading packet
-
Course Design:
-
class structure
-
specific course requirements
-
evaluation procedures & grading system
-
policies
-
Class Schedule
-
Mission Statements:
-
Assignments:
-
quantitative method description project
-
qualitative method concept definition paper
-
article summaries
-
.Grading Criteria:
-
quantitative method description paper
-
quantitative method description presentation
-
qualitative method concept definition paper
-
article summaries
.
Course
Overview
Course Description:
This course is designed
to provide students with the foundation necessary to identify and interpret
research in special education. This includes learning about the major research
traditions in special education, current controversies around research
in special education, and precautions and considerations critical for research
with vulnerable populations, such as individuals with mental retardation.
Rationale:
The mission of the
College of Education is to advance the quality of the educational experience
for all learners and to educate professionals who can facilitate human
growth in schools, homes, communities, and workplaces. In carrying out
this mission, the College explicitly values diversity in people and perspectives.
The rationale for the Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities Emphasis:
Studies in Education Equity for Diverse Exceptional Learners is supported
by a shift in the major paradigm in mental retardation, severe disabilities,
and bilingual special education from a solely trait-based conceptualization
toward thinking about disabilities as an interaction between individuals
with their unique characteristics, the different environments/contexts
which individuals encounter, and needed supports. This new way of thinking
forces reanalysis of structures designed to assist individuals in creating
for themselves satisfying lives and challenging traditional notions of
disabilities and handicaps.
This course supports
the College of Education and Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities
Emphasis frameworks by addressing student abilities within the context
of a diverse society, recognizing the need to support all individuals in
life-long learning, and validating all individuals, including those with
disabilities, as valuable members of their communities, including their
communities of learners.
Course Objectives:
Course participants
will:
| 1. |
To learn to avoid
the pitfalls of academic dishonesty and plagiarism in written work by correctly
using APA format. |
| 2. |
To understand the
major characteristics of the most common research designs in special education. |
| 3. |
To be able to classify
research articles according to their general type. |
| 4. |
To begin to be able
to evaluate research articles using different criteria for different research
designs (if this is X kind of research, is it a good X?). |
| 5. |
To understand the
major ethical issues in special education research. |
| 6. |
To become familiar
with some of the major debates in special education related to research. |
.
Readings
Required Books:
.
American Psychological
Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
.
McMillan, J. H.,
& Wergin, J. F. (2002). Understanding and evaluating educational
research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
.
Mertens, D. M.,
& McLaughlin, J. A. (1995). Research methods in special education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
.
Readings in Reading
Packet: (on sale at the COE Publications
Center)
.
Algozzine, B., Spooner,
F., & Karvonen, M. (2002). Preparing special education research articles
in APA style. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 24-30.
.
Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke,
J. E., & McGue, M. (1995). Differentiating low-achieving students:
Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 10(3), 140-144.
.
Bevan-Brown, J.
(2001). Evaluating special education services for learners from ethnically
diverse groups: Getting it right. JASH, 26(3), 138-147.
.
Brayboy, B. M.,
& Deyhle, D. (2000). Insider-outsider: Researchers in American Indian
communities. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 163-169.
.
Cameron, D., Frazer,
E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H., & Richardson, K. (1994). The relations
between researcher and researched: Ethics, advocacy and empowerment. In
D. Graddol & J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language
and literacy in social context (pp. 18-25). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
.
Ferguson, D. L.,
& Ferguson, P. M. (2000). Qualitative research in special education:
Notes toward as open inquiry instead of a new orthodoxy? JASH, 25(3),
180-185.
.
Finlay, W. M. L.,
& Lyons, E. (2002). Acquiescence in interviews with people who have
mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 40(1), 14-29.
.
Gersten, R., Baker,
S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special
education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education,
34(1), 2-18.
.
Harry, B. (1996).
These families, those families: The impact of research identities on the
research act. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 292-300.
.
Kavale, K. A. (1995).
Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement:
The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Reseach and Practice,
10(3), 145-152.
.
LeCompte, M. D.,
& Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Javonovich.
.
Lincoln, Y. S.,
& Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
.
Mactavish, J. B.,
Mahon, M. J., & Lutfiyya, Z. M. (2000). "I can speak for myself": Involving
individuals with intellectual disabilities as research participants. Mental
Retardation, 38(3), 216-227.
.
Magaña, S.
M. (2000). Mental retardation research methods in Latino communities. Mental
Retardation, 38(4), 303-315.
.
Poplin, M. S. (1988).
Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications
for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
21(7), 401-416.
.
TASH Connections,
28(3/4) -- 2002. Various articles by various authors.
Course
Design
.
Course Structure:
This course is designed
so that students will interact actively with the course material -- whole
and small group discussion, rather than instructor lecture, will make up
the bulk of in-class sessions. Therefore, it is imperative that students
arrive at each class having thoroughly read all of the assigned readings.
Graded assignments are designed to be instructional as well as providing
a means of arriving at a final grade for each student. Therefore, emphasis
will be placed on graded out-of-class assignments that rely on analysis,
synthesis and evaluation of course materials and development of critical
thinking.
Students who require
special accommodations or instructional modifications need to notify the
instructor by the beginning of the semester, or as soon as difficulties
become apparent, with appropriate documentation from the Student Support
Services Center (277-3506), Mesa Vista Hall, Room 2021.
Specific Course
Requirements:
Descriptions of
and criteria for grading each assignment will be handed out in class. Extra
copies can be obtained at the instructor's web site -- http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/
| . |
Assignment |
Points Possible |
| 1. |
quantitative method
description project: individual paper |
30 |
| 2. |
quantitative method
description project: group presentation |
9 |
| 3. |
qualitative method
concept definition paper |
30 |
| 4. |
3 article summaries
and critiques |
30 |
|
total
|
99 |
The total points
possible for all of the above assignments add up to 99 points. The final
point will be added to the student's grade at the instructor's discretion
for any assignment that goes significantly above and beyond the work of
other students. This allows the instructor to assign a grade of 'A+' only
in the case of the student fulfilling the stated requirements for all assignments,
attending all class sessions (or making up those missed) AND performing
clearly superior work on at least one assignment.
Evaluation Procedures
& Grading System:
Final grades will
be determined by a point system (X out of 100 total possible points). Fractionated
grading will be used, with the following breakdown:
A+ = 100
B+ = 88-89 C+ = 78-79
A = 94-99
B = 84-87 C = 74-77
A- = 90-93
B- = 80-83
F = below 74*
* Please note that,
according to UNM regulations, graduate students may not be assigned a grade
of C-, D+, D, or D-. Therefore, graduate students who do not accumulate
a minimum of 74 points by the end of the semester will be assigned an F.
Incompletes and
withdraws at the end of the semester will be allowed only in accordance
with UNM policies. Please see the UNM catalog for a description of these
policies.
Written directions
for all assignments will be provided, along with the criteria for determining
point values. Extra copies of assignments will be available at the instructor’s
web site at: http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/
All written assignments
will be expected to be typed and follow the American Psychological Association
Manual (5th ed.) format, unless otherwise specified. A brief guide to APA
is included in your reading packet. In particular, all assignments must:
-
be typed, double-spaced,
using 12-pt font, and 1 inch margins on all sides;
-
include your name and
the name of assignment (e.g., experimental design description);
-
include page numbers
in the upper right-hand corner;
-
demonstrate appropriate
use of headings;
-
be written in complete
and grammatical sentences;
-
include a reference
page that includes all sources used in the paper, formatted according to
APA guidelines; and
-
All works/sources used
in the assignment must be appropriately attributed.
Policies:
1.) Academic
Dishonesty: It is the responsibility of students to avoid practices
that may be considered acts of academic dishonesty. UNM’s policy, as found
in the UNM Pathfinder (2001-02), p. 58, is as follows:
Any student judged
to have engaged in academic dishonesty in course work may
receive a reduced
or failing grade for the work in question and/or the course.
Academic dishonesty
includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty in quizzes, tests, or assignments;
claiming credit for work not done or done by others . . .
What does this
mean for this course?
1.) In terms of
written work, this means that you have the responsibility to make it very
clear in all written work what portion of the work you wrote and what was
written by other people, such as book or article authors, web site authors,
or your colleagues. This includes both direct quotes and paraphrases.
2.) Additionally,
you must make it clear what you read to complete the assignment (a ‘primary
source’), versus what the authors of the sources read in preparation for
their work (a ‘secondary source’).
So, if you didn’t
actually write it or you didn’t actually read it, you must make that explicit.
Failure to do so falls under the category of academic dishonesty and will
result in the following:
..
-
The first time a problem
of this sort appears in an assignment, I will assume that it is unintentional
and will ask you to re-write the assignment. Points may be deducted from
your assignment at my discretion. You will be required to meet with me
to learn how to avoid this problem in future assignments.
-
The second time this
problem is noted in an assignment, you will be assigned 0 points for that
assignment.
-
If the problem appears
for the third time, you will be assigned a failing grade in the course.
..
To assist you in
understanding what plagiarism is and isn’t, you will be provided with a
handout during the first day of class on what plagiarism is and how to
avoid it. Additional handouts will be provided in your course reading packet.
Further information on avoiding plagiarism and other forms of academic
dishonesty can be found in the APA Manual and at the Dartmouth College
Website: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/contents.html. If you have any
concerns or questions about how to appropriately indicate what is your
own work and what is derived from the work of others, please see me during
office hours, or if that time is not convenient, call or email to set an
appointment time
2.) Late Paper
Policy: Late assignments will receive a one point deduction for every
day late, with a limit of seven days allowed. If assignments are not turned
in within one week of the assigned date, they will not be accepted, except
in the case of significant illness (doctor's note required) or major family
emergency. If you will not be able to be in class, please arrange for a
friend to turn in your assignment during class, have the assignment faxed
to the special education office by the time/date due, or have it handed
in in person to either Terri or Jo in the Special Education office (Hokona
Hall 273) prior to 5 p.m. on the date due. If your assignment will be turned
in at the Special Education office, please make sure that the time and
date it is received are documented by the staff. Do NOT put late assignments
under my office door, unless you want them accepted as turned in on the
day I find them, which may or may not be the same day as you turned them
in.
3.) Re-Writes:
In order to be fair to all students, re-writes will not be allowed, except
under extraordinary circumstances beyond the student's control. However,
students are STRONGLY encouraged to talk with, e-mail questions to, and/or
submit drafts to the instructor at least 1-2 weeks ahead of time, so that
revisions can be made, if necessary, by the assigned due date.
..
4.) Class Attendance:
Class attendance is mandatory - Students who miss more than three class
sessions will be dropped from the course, regardless of the reason.
Missed class sessions can be made up with the following, turned in no later
than three weeks after the missed class:
..
-
a photocopy of a colleague's
notes from the missed class (if available),
-
a typed response to
the reading questions (available on the course website), and
-
a typed summary of all
assigned readings for the class missed.
..
Late arrivals to
class interrupt the learning of all students. Therefore, a point will be
deducted for arriving more than 30 minutes late to class. Arriving more
than one hour late will be considered a class absence and will need to
be made up, as indicated above.
5.) Class Participation:
Class participation that is conducive to the learning of all course participants
is expected. Behaviors that are considered to be conducive to learning
(of the student him/herself and others) include:
..
-
arriving to class on
time and well-prepared;
-
paying attention to
others when they are speaking;
-
turning off the ringer
of your cellular phone and not taking calls within the classroom (please
step out in the hall to speak if you must answer an emergency call);
-
use of appropriate and
non-offensive language during class and in written class assignments;
-
demonstrating cooperation
with and respect for the instructor and peers during class discussions;
-
actively participating,
on-topic, during small group activities; and
-
showing consideration
for other students' need for alternative teaching strategies.
..
I expect students
to demonstrate consistently positive class participation. Frequent and/or
significant failure to fulfill these expectations will result in the student
being dropped from the course. The following four areas are defined below:
..
-
Respect for self and
others
-
Positive contribution
to the group
-
Listening
-
Openness
..
Respect for self,
colleagues and instructor is demonstrated
by: 1) following group norms during discussions, 2) consistent use of oral
and body language that is professional, and 3) frequent reference to classmate's
opinions and perspectives in class discussion in a positive and supportive
manner.
..
Positive contribution
to the group is demonstrated when: 1)
the quantity of contributions is neither significantly more or less than
that of other students, 2) you are not usually the first one to talk after
a prolonged silence, 3) contributions are almost always on topic, and 4)
comments frequently engage other participants or support the engagement
of other students in a consistently positive manner.
..
Listening
is demonstrated by: 1) providing previously provided information to colleagues
when asked, 2) not redundantly repeating what has already been stated,
3) consistently following directions, and 4) incorporating others' responses
and comments in contributions to class discussions.
..
Openness
is demonstrated by: 1) consistent recognition and consideration of alternative
perspectives, 2) consistent reaction to alternative ideas in a thoughtful
manner, and 3) a positive response to criticism and feedback.
Class
Schedule
August 20, 2002
(#1)
Topic: Introduction:
APA, academic dishonesty, and plagiarism
Read: No readings
due the first day
August 27, 2002
(#2)
Topic: Syllabus
and course requirements review and defining research
Read:
-
syllabus
-
handout: The facts about...
investigating what works
-
Mertens & McLaughlin,
chapter 1
September
3, 2002 (#3)
Topic: the paradigm
wars
Read:
-
Poplin, M. S. (1988).
Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications
for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
21(7), 401-416.
-
Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke,
J. E., & McGue, M. (1995). Differentiating low-achieving students:
Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 10(3), 140-144.
-
Kavale, K. A. (1995).
Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement:
The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Reseach and Practice,
10(3), 145-152.
September
10, 2002 (#4)
Topic: epistemologies
(huh?)
Read:
-
Lincoln, Y. S., &
Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (chapter
1)
September
17, 2002 (#5)
Topic: design issues
Read:
-
Algozzine, B., Spooner,
F., & Karvonen, M. (2002). Preparing special education research articles
in APA style. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 24-30.
-
Mertens & McLaughlin,
chapter 2
September
24, 2002 (#6)
Topic: design
issues continued
Read:
-
McMillan & Wergin,
chapter 1
October 1,
2002 (#7)
Topic: critical
concepts in quantitative designs
Due: quantitative
method description paper
Read:
-
Mertens & McLaughlin,
chapters 3 & 5
-
McMillan & Wergin,
chapter 3
October 8,
2002 (#8)
Topic: group
presentations: experimental and quasi-experimental designs
due: mid-semester
instructor and course evaluation
Read:
-
Gersten, R., Baker,
S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special
education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education,
34(1), 2-18.
-
Mertens & McLaughlin,
chapters 3 & 5 (continue)
-
McMillan & Wergin,
chapter 3 (continue)
October 15,
2002 (#9)
Topic: group presentations:
single case and case study designs
Read:
-
Mertens & McLaughlin,
chapters 3 & 5 (continue)
-
McMillan & Wergin,
chapter 3 (continue)
October 22,
2002 (#10)
Topic: group presentations:
survey designs and narrative analysis
Read:
-
McMillan & Wergin,
chapter 4
October 29,
2002 (#11)
Topic: So
what is “qualitative research”? Discussing a smorgasbord of qualitative
designs and methods
Read:
-
LeCompte, M. D., &
Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research (2nd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Javonovich. (chapter 9)
-
Ferguson, D. L., &
Ferguson, P. M. (2000). Qualitative research in special education: Notes
toward as open inquiry instead of a new orthodoxy? JASH, 25(3), 180-185.
November 5, 2002
(#12)
Topic: characteristics
of non-positivist research
Due: qualitative
method concept definition paper
Read:
-
Cameron, D., Frazer,
E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H., & Richardson, K. (1994). The relations
between researcher and researched: Ethics, advocacy and empowerment. In
D. Graddol & J. Maybin & B. Stierer (Eds.), Researching language
and literacy in social context (pp. 18-25). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
-
Brayboy, B. M., &
Deyhle, D. (2000). Insider-outsider: Researchers in American Indian communities.
Theory into Practice, 39(3), 163-169.
November 12,
2002 (#13)
Topic: learning
to critically read qualitative research
Read:
-
Mertens & McLaughlin,
chapter 4
November 19,
2002 (#14)
Topic: ethics: deconstructing
consent and participation with “vulnerable” populations
Read:
-
Mactavish, J. B., Mahon,
M. J., & Lutfiyya, Z. M. (2000). "I can speak for myself": Involving
individuals with intellectual disabilities as research participants. Mental
Retardation, 38(3), 216-227.
-
Finlay, W. M. L., &
Lyons, E. (2002). Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental
retardation. Mental Retardation, 40(1), 14-29.
November 26,
2002 (#15)
Topic: ethics, cont.
Read two out of
the following three articles:
-
Bevan-Brown, J. (2001).
Evaluating special education services for learners from ethnically diverse
groups: Getting it right. JASH, 26(3), 138-147.
-
Harry, B. (1996). These
families, those families: The impact of research identities on the research
act. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 292-300.
-
Magaña, S. M.
(2000). Mental retardation research methods in Latino communities. Mental
Retardation, 38(4), 303-315.
December 3,
2002 (#16) -- last week of class
Topic: So what is
good research?
Due: article summaries
and critiques
Read:
-
TASH Connections, 28(3/4)
-- 2002. Various articles by various authors.
-
IRB paperwork from reading
packet..