“Why are Students Not Learning on the School Bus?” provides alternative, non-traditional methods of teaching students. The author, Keshia L. Gaines, Ph.D. offers ground-breaking techniques to expand areas for learning opportunities. Research has shown that academic achievement is related to the amount of time a student is engaged in learning. Also, school schedules do not highlight the non-instructional times of a student’s school day. During the school day, missed learning opportunities often occur during transition times, bathroom breaks, intercom interruptions, lunch time, and many other unstructured and unplanned times. The author’s new “Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop™” method is designed to replace academic down-times with unique learning opportunities for outside the classroom. Also, this section gives information about Vygotsky’s social learning theory. (When this book refers to “learning on the school bus” or “learning outside the classroom,” the author is referring to learning academic content).
Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop™ – a learning method for increasing academic achievement by exposing students to academic content outside the classroom (areas such as the bus stop, school bus, cafeteria, bathrooms, hallways, playgrounds, other school areas, and by academic content on clothing of all students and staff members).
THIS REPORT WAS TAKEN FROM THIS SITE, AND THEN REFINED TO USE FOR AN ENGLISH 3 PERSUASIVE PARAGRAPH. (-Means New Paragraph, it is 8 paragraphs and 3 pages long) Start here -- -Do you enjoy going to school at 7 in the morning Are you fully awake and think you can handle lifes many daily challenges to the fullest of your ability I think not. -We at Ray more Peculiar High School need more sleep. In ...
The Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop™ Learning Method was created by Dr. Keshia L. Gaines in the Fall of 2010.
“Learning on the School Bus” and the Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop Method
The idea behind the Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop™ learning method is that students will be exposed to academic content starting at the school bus stop. Students will continue to be exposed to academic content throughout their school hours until they get dropped off at that same bus stop at the end of the school day. The name Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop™ was created because the method constantly exposes students, in many different and entertaining ways, to academic content from each “bus stop to bus stop.” Since some students will not ride the school bus, this name is literal in nature. Some students walk to school, skateboard, ride a bicycle, drive (or ride in) a car, etc.
Since some of the Bus-stop 2 Bus-stop™ learning areas may not be supervised by an adult, the method serves as a means for nurturing independent learners. This method plays an important role not only in shaping the school’s culture but also encouraging children to learn on their own. The corresponding research for this method is derived from brain-based learning, visual learning, repetition learning, social learning, incidental learning, and other teaching and learning aspects.
Why are students not learning on the school bus?
For many years students have been transported to and from school by school buses. School districts spend millions of dollars nationally to provide a variety of transportation for students. However, these funds spent on student transportation could also provide an educational benefit if students were exposed to academic content while on the buses.
The interior and exterior of a traditional school bus in America is basically the same in all parts of the country. Most school busses have a bright yellow exterior and a uniform interior, which usually includes the bus-driver’s area and large bus seats for the students. The large backs of the bus seats are a perfect opportunity to provide educational content. Also, television screens could be mounted on school buses, if funds were available. Learning programs should play while a student is riding to and from school. This would greatly increase academic exposure. The academic content should reflect the types of students on that bus route. For example, a bus route with high school students would display high school content on the television screens, while middle or elementary students would display materials tailored to their specific learning levels.
To What Extent Should High School Students be allowed to Exercise Freedom of Speech While on Campus I think that nowadays to deal with an issue of students free speech rights is a tough problem for High School administrators. The matter is that students free speech is protected by the First Amendment. Thus it means that students are allowed to exercise free speech while on campus. But what should ...
An inexpensive way to use this method is to attach small posters or cards, with academic content, above each window on the interior of the bus. This could serve an academic purpose as well as reminding students of their assigned seats. Another inexpensive way to add academic opportunities on the school bus is to add an audio system, which can play catchy songs with academic content. This auditory learning method is better than not providing a learning opportunity at all, but it will have a lesser impact than a visual learning system or a visual learning system with audio.
In considering the larger context of academic content, school buses should include academic content on the exterior of the bus, just as city buses advertise on their exteriors. Specific bus routes could have assigned bus seats with specific study content and study partners. The school could hire a traveling bus tutor to assist students while learning on the school bus. The school bus has been an area of missed learning opportunity for years!
Research Focus: Vygotsky’s Social Learning Theory
In addition to the author’s beliefs about learning on the school bus, this learning area includes a social learning component. When students ride the school bus, they talk and socially interact with their peers. If a learning support, such as Dr. Gaines’s learning pad invention, educational posters, or visual aides are used, students can learn through social learning. These are called scaffolds, or temporary learning supports, and can be adjusted once a student learns the content. As detailed below, Vygotsky’s social learning theory can work with or without teacher guidance. As long as students have a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO), they can learn academic content through social interaction. A More Knowledgeable Other is any person that has more knowledge on a subject than the person being taught.
The Homework on Discuss How Different Approaches to Learning Can Affect Student Success in Higher Education
It utilized a questionnaire based on an academic text, gathering some students, asking them to read the text then answer the questionnaire. Two distinctive groups were formed: students with high levels of understanding and perfect answers, named deep approach learners, and another with lower level, referred to as surface approach learners (Ramsden, 2003). Later, another approach was discovered and ...
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934), a Russian theorist, is best known for his research on social learning. Vygotsky’s social learning theory involves cultural and social contexts of learning and how it shapes development. He believed “every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978, p. 57).
These social interactions, which are influenced by personal, social, and cultural factors, work together for learning to take place. In short, this theory explains how learning and consciousness are the results of socialization.
According to Daniels (2001), Vygotsky’s theory breaks down into three categories: the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), social learning preceding development, and More Knowledgeable Others (MKO).
The Zone of Proximal Development refers to tasks a child cannot complete alone, but can complete with the assistance of an adult (Daniels, 2001).
In his own words, ZPD, is “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978, p. 86).
Vygotsky believed that this method encourages a child to achieve a higher level of achievement than usual. With the child exposed to challenges of a greater difficulty, he or she is able to engage in dialogue with self or others, such as the teacher. Dolya (2010) agrees that this external monologue is internalized as thought. Children can perform at higher levels with help from a More Knowledgeable Other. This can be any person that can help the child academically (Dolya, 2010).
1 The best form of motivation is self-motivation. Pupils need to connect with teachers if they are achieve this. Teachers can motivate their pupils by meeting their needs for the three 'As': affiliation, agency and autonomy. They do this through the energisers that create a motivating learning climate; the flip side of the energisers are the drainers - things that staff need to avoid doing. ...
The interpretation of ZPD caused ongoing tensions between researchers Valsiner and Gergen and the idea of others. Within the two levels of ZPD, the top represents when the student cannot function without assistance and the bottom level represents when the student can function independently. Dolya (2010) also agrees with Vygotsky in that the teacher and others play an important role in student learning. The Zone of Proximal Development is described as an apprenticeship (Schunk, 2007, p. 248).
Others term the participants as more able and less able (Luckin,1999).
Vygotsky stated “that in order to understand the individual, one must first understand the social relations in which the individual exists” (Wertsch, 1985, p. 15).
According to Vygotsky, socialization effects how humans think. His insight was that the social context of a child is critical to knowledge acquisition and mind processing. Areas such as a child’s school building, housing community, and other surroundings greatly affect the child’s thought patterns. Also, Bodrova and Leong (1996) echoed Vygotsky’s idea of cognition in an external context.
Temporary Learning Supports AKA Scaffolds
Alongside Vygotsky’s concept of Zone of Proximal Development, he invented a concept called scaffolding. Vygotsky defined a scaffold as the “role of teachers and others in supporting the learner’s development and providing support structures to get to that next stage or level” (Raymond, 2000, p. 176).
Basically, scaffolding involves a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) providing some sort of support, or “scaffold” to help the learner. Shortly after being introduced to the scaffold, the learner may begin to use prior knowledge to understand new content. Scaffolding also involves introducing information on the higher end of the learner’s ZPD (Olson & Pratt, 2000).
Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (2000) explains scaffolding as the MKO helping the learner reach the high end of the ZPD.
Since scaffolds are temporary in nature, the MKO can withdraw them when the learner’s capabilities increase. The goal of using scaffolding is for the learner to master the academic content individually (Hartman, 2002).
When the learner’s knowledge increases, the teacher can reduce the scaffolds. A quote by Vygotsky in Raymond (2000) says that “the system of knowledge itself becomes part of the scaffold or social support for the new learning” (Raymond, 2000, p.176).
Introduction My current school has special education roster of 32 students in self contain with over 90% of the students being African-American. This paper will address the large number African-American students in the special education system. Attention will be focus on the social economic roles that play a part in placement. When done properly and in appropriate perspective, special education is ...
Examples of scaffolds include models and prompts of various types for learner assistance (Hartman, 2002).
After the MKO introduces the scaffolds to the learner, he or she may engage in social learning with others (Hartman, 2002).
With scaffolds like The Universal School Bus Seat Learning Pad, learners of various academic levels can interact with each other.
McKenzie (1999) agrees that scaffolding can be used to engage students in learning because it provides a tool for students to organize and focus. In “Scaffolding for Success” McKenzie (1999) describes scaffolding into eight characteristics. These characteristics describe scaffolding instructional techniques and results from scaffolding. According to McKenzie (1999), scaffolding:
1. Provides clear directions and explain just what students must do in order to meet the expectations for the learning activity;
2. Clarifies purpose and keeps purpose and motivation in the forefront;
3. Keeps students on task so that the learner can exercise great personal discretion within parameters but is not in danger of off road stranding;
4. Offers assessment to clarify expectations right from the beginning as students are shown rubrics and standards that define excellence;
5. Points out students to worthy sources by allowing students to put their energy into interpretation rather than wandering;
6. Reduces uncertainty, surprise, and disappointment with a clear goal to maximize learning and efficiency;
7. Delivers efficiency, yet still requires hard work centered on the inquiry that it seems like a potter and wheel; and
8. Creates momentum as searching for understanding inspires and provokes (McKenzie,1999).
In Learning to Learn Ngeow and Yoon (2001) explained a term called problem-based learning (PBL) which encourages children to develop learning practices. Scaffolded instruction is part of PBL. According to Ngeow and Yoon (2001) the More Knowledgeable Other “…designs activities which offer just enough of a scaffold for students to overcome this gap in knowledge and skills” (Ngeow & Yoon, 2001, p. 2).
In any given classroom and school activity of relatively extended duration and complexity, students’ engagement is never homogeneously high and productive, but rather it fluctuates depending on a number of factors (Mcwayne et al. , 2012; Mattingly et al. , 2013) such as parental involvement (Ho & Williams, 2008; McNeal, 2009; Jose et al. , 2010;). Students engage better in school when parents ...
As explained in Thought and Language, Vygotsky and Hanfmann (1967) pointed out that children develop an inner speech. This is a result of internalizing information after communicating with a More Knowledgeable Other. Vygotsky believed that inner speech, also called private speech leads to cognitive growth (Vygotsky & Hanfmann, 1967).
Recent research studies confirm that scaffolding is a productive learning method. In Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge, Hyerle (1996) uses various visual prompts as scaffolds to assist learners in remembering content. This method proved to be very beneficial for helping students to understand and remember content.
In addition to the literature, research studies show that scaffolding proves beneficial. Chang, Chen, and Sung (2002) conducted a seven week research study with 126 fifth graders to see if there would be a difference between scores when scaffolding was used versus when it was not used. Before the study began, the students were assigned to four random learning groups that included three levels of exposure to concept maps and one control group. Pre-tests and post-tests were given to test comprehension and summarization abilities. The four random learning groups were broken into map correction (most scaffolding), scaffold fading (moderate scaffolding), and map generation (least scaffolding).
The test was administered at an elementary school in Taipei, Taiwan. There were sixty-six boys and sixty girls separated into groups containing 26, 32, 34, and 34 in the respective groups. The results of this study showed that the correction group (most scaffolding) scored higher on the post-test than the scaffold fading group, generation group, and the control group. The researchers point out that the map correction group excelled because of the scaffolding. Although the scaffold fading (moderate group) had some inconsistent scores, the researchers argued that they could be a result of content difficulty and lack of time for training (Chang, Chen, & Sung, 2002).
In conclusion, this research study showed how concept mapping (scaffolding) “…may serve as a useful graphic strategy for improving text learning” (Chang, Chen, & Sung, 2002, p. 21).
Vygotsky’s thinking ties greatly to a social and cultural background (Vygotsky & Cole, 1978).
From a developmental perspective, Vygotsky believed that culture had a very important role on the development process. It is evident that the ideas of development and culture vary among researchers. Lamb (2005) stated that development is complex because culture is complicated to understand. Also, Lamb (2005) agrees that culture influences child behavior, social interaction, and more. School administrators and staff should take into consideration their school’s culture and apply best practices for exposing students to learning opportunities on the school bus.
Al-Balhan, E.M. (2007).
Learning Styles in Relation to Academic Performance in Middle School Mathematics, Domes, 16(1)
Alferink, L. A., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010).
Brain-(not) based education: Dangers of misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research. Exceptionality, 18(1), 42-52.
Anderson, R., & Shifrin, Z. (1980).
The Meaning of Words in Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Baker, D. P., Fabrega, R., Galindo, C., & Mishook, J. (2005).
Instructional time and national achievement: Cross-national evidence. Prospects 34 (3).
Bender, N. W. & Larkin, J. M. (2009).
Reading strategies for elementary
students with learning difficulties: strategies for RTI. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Benson, P. (1997).
Problems in Picturing Text: A Study of Visual/Verbal Problem Solving. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6 (2) 141-160
Bergen, D. (2002).
Evaluating ‘brain-based’ curricular claims. Social Education, 66(5), 376.Blakemore, C. L. (2003).
Movement is essential to learning. JOPERD–The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(9), 22.
Blakemore, C. (2003).
Movement is Essential to Learning. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 74(9), 1-7.
Blau, J. R. (2004).
The Blackwell companion to sociology. Malden, MA:
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996).
Tools of the mind: the Vygotskian
approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill.
Boucher, A., & Wiseman, E. (2011).
Movement discovery: physical
education for children. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000).
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brookbank, D., Grover, S., Kullberg, K., & Strawser, C. (1999) Improving Student Achievement Through Organization of Student Learning. Chicago: Saint Xavier University and IRI/Skylight
Brophy, E. J. (2010).
Motivating students to learn. New York: Routledge.
Bruer, J. T. (1997a).
A science of learning. The American School Board Journal, 184(2), 24-27.
Bruer, J. T. (1997b).
Education and the brain: A bridge too far.
Educational Researcher, 26 (8), 4-16.
Bryson, J. E., & Bentley, C. P. (1980).
Ability grouping of public school
students: legal aspects of classification and tracking methods. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Co.
Bucko, R. L. (1997).
Brain basics: Cognitive psychology and its
implications for education. ERS Spectrum, 15(3), 20-25.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990).
Understanding a brain-based approach
to learning and teaching. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 66-70.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1994).
Making connections: Teaching and the
human brain. Menlow Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman.
Campbell, D. & Stanley, J. (1993).
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
Carroll, J. B. (1963).
The study of language: a survey of linguistics and
related disciplines in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chance, P. (2001, September-October).
Becoming a ‘wiz’ at brain-based
teaching: From translation to application. Psychology Today, 34(5), 72.
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991).
Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4) 293-332
Chang, K., Chen, I., & Sung, Y. (2002).
The effect of concept mapping to
enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71(1), 5-23.
Danan, M. (1992).
Reversed Subtitling and Dual Coding Theory: New Directions for Foreign Language Instruction. Language Learning, 42, 497-527
Daniels, H. (2001).
Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge-Falmer.
Davis, S. M. (2000).
Look before you leap: Concerns about ‘brain-based’ products and approaches. Childhood Education, 77(2), 100.
Denham, C. (1980).
Time to learn: a review of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study, conducted with funds provided by the National Institute of Education. Sacramento, Calif.: California Commission for Teacher Preparation and Licensing.
Dolya, G. (2010).
Vygotsky in action in the early years: the ‘key to learning’ curriculum. London: Routledge.
Doyle, C. S. (1999).
The use of graphic organizers to improve comprehension of learning
disabled students in social studies. Union, NJ: M. A. Research Project, Kean
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427313)
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (2000).
Practical approaches to using learning
styles in higher education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Fisher, D. (2009).
The use of instructional time in the typical high school
classroom. The Educational Forum, 73(2).
Gallick-Jackson, S. A. (1997) Improving Narrative Writing Skills, Composition Skills, and Related Attitudes among Second Grade Students by Integrating Word Processing Graphic Organizers and Art into a Process Approach to Writing. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southern University
Gatewood, T. E. (1989).
Caution! Applying brain research to education. The Clearing House, 63(1), 37-39.
Gettinger, M. Seibert, J. K. (n.d).
Best Practices in Increasing: Academic
Learning Time, Best Practices in School Psychology. Retrieved on June 19, 2011 from
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. & Ross- Gordon, J. M. (2010).
and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Goldberg, S. H. (2011).
Can The National Center on Time & Learning Bring
Longer Schools Days to One Million Students? Retrieved on June 20, 2011 from http://www.philasocialinnovations.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=268:can-the-national-center-on-time-a-learning-bring-longer-schools-days-to-one-million-students-&catid=19:disruptive-innovations&Itemid=30
Golon, A.S. (2006).
The Visual-spatial Classroom: Differentiation that
Engages Every Learner. Denver, CO: Visual-Spatial Resource
Greenspan, S.I., (2000).
The Irreducible Needs of Children: What Every Child Must have to Grow, Learn, and Flourish. Perseus Books.
Greenwood, C. S. (2010).
The power of words: learning vocabulary in
grades 4-9. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Hartman, H. (2002).
Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. Human
Learning and Instruction (pp. 23-69).
New York: City College of City University of New York.
Hedegaard, M. (2001).
Learning in classrooms: a cultural-historical
approach. Aarhus [u.a.: Aarhus Univ. Press
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1999).
Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning. (6th ed).
(pp. 14-15, 21, 213-214, 290-291, 319-324).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Herbert, B. (2009, November 28).
Stacking the Deck Against Kids. New
York Times, p. A19.
Horn, R. (1998).
Mapping Great Debates: Can Computers Think? Macro
Hruby, G. G. (1999).
Teaching with the brain in mind. Roeper Review, 21(4), 326.
Huyvaert, S. H. (1998).
Time is of the essence: learning in schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hyerle, D. (1996).
Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ireson, J., & Hallam S. (2001).
Ability grouping in education. London, UK:
Jensen, E., & Dabney, M. W. (2000).
Learning smarter: the new science of teaching. San Diego, CA: Brain Store.
Jensen, E. (1996).
Brain-based learning. Del Mar, CA: Turning Point Publishing.
Jensen, E. (2008).
Brain-based learning: the new paradigm of teaching (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press.
Jones, R. (1995).
Smart brains. The American School Board Journal, 182(11), 22-26.
Jonson, F. K., Cappelloni, N., & Niesyn, M. (2011).
The new elementary
teacher’s handbook: flourishing in your first year. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Jorgenson, O. (2003).
Brain scam? Why educators should be careful
about embracing brain research. The Educational Forum, 67(4), 364-369.
Jowett, G. & Linton, J. (1989).
Movies as Mass Communication. New
York: Sage Publishers
Kirkland, L. D., Camp, D. & Manning, M. (2008).
Changing the Face of
Summer Programs Childhood Education, 85(2)
Kleinman, E. & Dwyer, F. (1999).
Analysis of Computerized Visual Skills:
Relationships to Intellectual Skills and Achievement. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26 (1) 53-69
Kosanovich, M.L., and Weinstein, C. & Goldman, E. (2009).
student center activities to differentiate instruction. A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction
Lamb, M.E. (2005).
Attachments, social networks, and developmental
contexts. Human Development, 48: 108-112.
Levine, M. & Barringer, M. (2008).
Brain-Based Research Helps to Identify and Treat Slow Learners. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(9), 9-13. Retrieved on June 21, 2011 from EBSCOhost.
Lindsey, G. (1998-1999).
Brain research and implications for early childhood education.
Childhood Education, 75(2), 97-100.
Lombardi, J. (2008).
Beyond learning styles: Brain-based research and English Language Learners. Heldref Publications. p.219
Marsick, J. V. & Watkins, E. K. (1990).
Informal and incidental learning in
the workplace. New York: Routledge.
Mayer, R. & Sims, V. (1994).
For whom is a Picture worth a Thousand
Words? Extensions of a Dual-coding Theory of Multimedia
Learning. Journal of Educational Technology, 86, 389-401
Mayer, R. (2001).
Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press
McKenzie, J. (1999).
Scaffolding for Success. [Electronic version] Beyond Technology, Questioning, Research and the Information Literate School Community. Retrieved June 12, 2011, from http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html
McMurrer, J. (2008).
Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. In From the capital to t the classroom: Year of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Morgan, H. (1999).
The imagination of early childhood education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Ngeow, K.K., &Yoon, S. (2001, October).
Learning to learn: preparing teachers and students for problem-based learning. ERIC Digest. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed457524.html
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991).
Student engagement: When recitation becomes conversation. In H. Waxman and H. Walberg (Eds.), Contemporary Research on Teaching.
Berkeley: McCutchan. (A. Gamoran, second author).
Olson, J. and Pratt, J. (2000).
The Instructional Cycle. Teaching Children and Adolescents with Special Needs (pp. 170-197).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
O’Neil, J. & Marsick, J. V. (2007).
Understanding action learning. New
York: American Management Association.
Paivio, A. (1986).
Mental Representations: Dual-coding Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press
Paivio, A. (1991).
Dual-coding Theory: Retrospect and Current Status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287
Phelps, M. (2010).
Real-time Teaching and Learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(1)
Phillips, D. C. & Soltis, J. F. (1998).
Perspectives on learning (3rd ed.).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampton, J.M., & Echevarria, M. (1998).
The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade 4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159-194.
Prigge, D.J. (2002).
20 ways to promote brain-based teaching and learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 237-241.
Raymond, E. (2000).
Cognitive Characteristics. Learners with Mild Disabilities (pp. 169-201).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company.
Reeves, D. B. (2004).
Accountability in action: a blueprint for learning organizations (2nd ed.).
Edgewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press
Rieber, L. (1994).
Computers, Graphics and Learning. Madison, WI: WCB Brown and Benchmark
Ritchie, D. & Volkl, C. (2000).
Effectiveness of two generative learning
strategies in the science classroom. School Science & Mathematics, 100(2), 83-89.
Rock, M. L., & Thread, B. K. (2009).
Promote student success during independent seatwork. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(3).
Scales, P.C., Roehlkepartain, E.C., Neal, M., Kielsmeier, J.C. & Benson, P.L. (2006).
Reducing Academic Achievement Gaps: the Role of Community Service and Service learning, The Journal of Experiential Education, 29(2)
Sears, J., & Sorensen, P. (2001).
Issues in science teaching. New York,
Silverman, L.K. (2002).
Upside-down Brilliance: The Visual-spatial
Learner. Denver, CO: Deleon Publishing
Simpson, D. (2006).
The Impact of Breakfast Clubs on Pupil Attendance and Punctuality
Research in Education, 6(2).
Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984).
comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping.
Reading Teacher, 38(1), 22-29.
Slavin, R. E. (1996).
Education for all. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis
Sousa, D. A. (2003).
How the Gifted Brain Learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Tripp, L., Basye, C., Jones, J. & Tripp, V. (2008).
Teaching and Learning with Time Lines Social Education, 72(3)
Troyer, S. J. (1994, April) The effects of three instructional conditions in text structure on upper elementary students’ reading comprehension and writing performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Service Reproduction No. ED 373315)
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978).
Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Hanfmann, E. (1967).
Thought and language (3. pbk. print. ed.).
Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985).
Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wheelock, A. (1994).
Alternatives to tracking and ability grouping.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators
Wolfe, P. (2001).
Brain matters: translating research into classroom practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wood, Z. & Walker, J. (2007).
Learning outside the Classroom: What Can Be Done in Lesson Time? Teaching Geography, 32 (3)