Box 11127 • Birmingham,AL AL35201-0361 35202-1127 Box 361 • Birmingham,
Publisher of:
Education College Student Journal Reading Improvement
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
EDUCATION
PROJECT INNOVATION INC.
VOLUME 139 Fall/2018 NUMBER 1
139
Fall/2018
1
Education Oldest Journal in the United States PHILLIP FELDMAN, Ed.D. Editor
EDITORIAL BOARD PATRICIA AINSA University of Texas at El Paso NINA BROWN Old Dominion University KHANH BUI Pepperdine University BROOKE BURKS Auburn University at Montgomery YVETTE BYNUM University of Alabama TIM DAUGHERTY Missouri State University BRETT EVERHART Lock Haven University AMY GOLIGHTLY Bucknell University ANDRE GREEN University of South Alabama NANCY HAMILTON University of Arkansas at Little Rock CHARLES HARRIS James Madison University AMY HOAGLUND Samford University SHELLEY HOLDEN University of South Alabama
GRACE HUANG Cleveland State University STEPHANIE HUFFMAN University of Central Arkansas JEFF HUNTER Glenville State College PATRICIA HUSKIN Texas A & M University, Kingsville PATTIE JOHNSTON The University of Tampa WILLIAM KELLY Robert Morris University ANDI KENT University of South Alabama CHULA KING The University of West Florida MISTY LACOUR Kaplan University MARIE LASSMANN Texas A&M University-Kingsville LISA LOONEY University of La Verne BEN MAGUAD Andrews University
Journal Purpose As a professional education journal, Education seeks to support the teaching and learning aspects of a school and university. Articles dealing with original investigations and theoretical papers on every aspect of teaching and learning are invited for consideration. Journal History The first issue of EDUCATION was published in 1880 by The New England Publishing Company of Boston, Massachusetts by the Palmer family. In the 1950’s Dr. Emmett A. Betts of the Betts Reading Clinic in Haverford, Pennsylvania, served as Editor-in-Chief. Members of the Palmer family continued to publish EDUCATION until 1969 when Dr. Cassel and his wife, Lan Mieu became the Editor, Managing Editor and Publisher. On January 1, 2004 Dr. Phil Feldman and George Uhlig assumed the editorial responsibilities. EDUCATION remains the oldest education journal published on a continuing basis. Indexed Education is regularly reviewed by College Student Journal Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Inc., Language and Language Behavior Abstracts, Abstracts on Reading and Learning Disabilities, H.W. Wilson Education Abstracts, Current Index to Journals in Education, listed in Behavioral and Social Sciences, and microfilmed by Proquest Information Services (formerly University Microform, Inc.) Copyright Clearance Centers The following e-libraries have contracted with Project Innovation to provide copies of articles from Education, and clearance for their use: (1) Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., (2) Infonautics, (3) H.W. Wilson Company, (4) Gale Group, (5) The Uncover Company, and (6) bigchalk.com. In addition we have become partners on the web with EBSCO, and ProQuest, Inc (formerly Bell & Howell Information Services).
JODI NEWTON Samford University JOSEPH NICHOLS Arkansas State University CHRIS PIOTROWSKI University of West Florida SAM ROBERSON Plano Independent School District, Plano, Texas JOSEPH SENCIBAUGH Webster University KATE SIMMONS Auburn University Montgomery JOEL SNELL Kirkwood College (Retired) ERVIN SPARAPANI Saginaw Valley State University WILLIAM STERRETT University of North Carolina Wilmington MERCEDES TICHENOR Stetson University JUSTIN WALTON Cameron University
Submissions Manuscripts should be submitted through the Project Innovation web site: http://www.projectinnovation.com. Manuscripts must be prepared to conform with the style and procedures described in the Publication Manual for the American Psychological Association. Manuscripts must be accompanied by an abstract of 100-120 words and appear at the beginning of the manuscript. It should contain statements of (a) problem, (b) method, (c) results, and (d) conclusions when appropriate. It should provide the reader with an idea of the theme and scope of the article. Manuscripts should be double spaced. Editorial Office PROJECT INNOVATION INC. P.O. Box 8508 Mobile, Alabama 36608
[email protected] Subscriber Information US phone: 1-800-633-4931 Non US phone: 205-995-1597 Fax: 205-995-1588 Email:
[email protected] Mail: Project Innovation Subscription Office P.O. Box 361 Birmingham, Alabama 35201-0361 Institutional Subscription (1 year) 2018 Rates US customers Online Only..................... $150 Print Only........................ $175 Print and Online.............. $200 Education is published quarterly. Canadian subscriptions: Add $15 per year Other international subscriptions: Add $40 per year Printed and circulated by PPF. © Copyright 2016 by Project Innovation Inc., Mobile, Alabama.
EDUCATION VOLUME 139
Fall 2018
Number 1
“Schooling Through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities .................................................................................................. Velibor Bobo Kovač
1
A Paradigm For Avoiding Spurious Outcomes ................................................................................................................... Joel Snell
15
Capitalizing on Pre-Existing Student Engagement with Fossils: A Gateway to Generate Student Interest, Participation, and Learning ....................... Jeffrey C. Hunter, M.E.Behrendt, B.H Breithaupt, J.G. Scotchmoor
19
The Language of Play and Gender-Role Stereotypes ...................................................................................................... Tarsha E. Bluiett
38
Marijuana Consumption and Access Among Midwest College Students ................................................................................... David Ruggeri, Michelle Teti
43
“SCHOOLING THROUGH DEMOCRACY”: LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBILITIES Velibor Bobo Kovač
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway The term “schooling through democracy” refers to an overly optimistic idea, frequently used for rhetorical purposes, that traditional schooling is an important context for children to practice democracy. In the present paper, two interrelated issues are argued. First, after an outline of the core conditions for democracy is presented, I argue that the practice of democracy in traditional schooling is severely limited. Second, I identify core skills that are essential for development of democratic ways of acting that could workably be implemented in the realm of traditional schooling. The overall argument is that, although traditional school cannot, per definition, be a democratically driven institution, there exist clear potentials for improvement when it comes to systematic teaching of skills that lead to adult “quality democracy” later in life. Key words: democracy, traditional school, skills, quality democracy
Introduction
democratic way of thinking), and skills (prepare children for democratic participation through practical training). The second direction, representing essentially an extension of the skill component, is called “education through democracy”. The idea here is to apply democratic forms of education through practical learning and implement them in school structures in order to sufficiently reinforce the idea of education for democracy. The conceptual difference between “education for democracy” (i.e. schooling people about democracy) and “education through democracy” (i.e. democracy and democratic processes in schools) certainly is not a new one in the sense that several theorists have, in various degrees of explicitness, pointed out the conceptual difference between these directions (e.g. Biesta, 2006). From the theoretical point of view, it is fair to say that all three components that comprise direction “education for democracy” are more
The discussions on the role of democracy in education in general and school in particular have a longstanding tradition (e.g. Dewey, 1916). The interest in democratic processes in schools is relatively stable over the years and is currently visible in the massive global coverage of this topic in the form of academic texts and political documents (Noddings, 2013; Straume, 2016; Miller, 2002; Harber, 1997). Although the relation between democracy and schooling certainly is a complex issue with many subtopics and themes, it is nevertheless possible to identify two main directions in which this relationship is analyzed. The first one concerns education for democracy where the main emphasis is on teaching young generations about democracy. Biesta (2006) views this process to consist of three components: knowledge (receiving and managing curriculum about democracy), values (developing positive attitude toward 1
2 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 or less unproblematic. Providing children in all ages with knowledge about democracy is realistic and achievable using proper and systematic educational approach. Similarly, the value component concerning democracy is recommendable as a democratic way of thinking is traditionally associated with respect, inter-subjectivity, and distribution of power in the bottom-up fashion. The skill component is also, to some degree, workable through provision of a specific arena where democratic processes might be applied and practiced. However, the second direction named “education through democracy” characterizes a tendency in general educational literature to portray school as a place that is internally organized and ruled by democratic processes. The idea of “education through democracy” that originates from literature in the social sciences has gained a status of international movement and gradually extended to political documents and politically loaded academic texts that set a global frame for organizational structure in contemporary schools (Harber, 1997). In various levels of explicitness, this idea implies that educational institutions in general and schools in particular represent, and should represent, a democratic arena where democracy is already directly applied (e.g. Backman & Trafford, 2007; Beane & Apple, 1999). This implicit tendency to portray educational institutions as democratic arenas gained gradually a status of truism (e.g. schools are or should be democratic arena) that is frequently used for rhetorical and/ or political purposes in many different cultural settings (Harber, 1997). However, research that focuses on users suggests that the idea of democracy in school does not conform to real school experiences of children and parents (e.g. Tursunović, 2005; Yilmaz, 2009; Mncube, 2009). The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, I argue that the idea of “education through democracy” has clear limitations that
are not sufficiently and explicitly acknowledged in current literature. Expressed more bluntly, implying that schools are, or might be, organized by democratic principles is not realistic. This is based on the relatively simple argument that core processes in democracy are mostly incompatible with the manner in which most contemporary schools are conceptualized, organized, and driven. The theoretical incompatibility between democracy as a concept and a school’s internal organization is not restricted to education, considering that many other institutions in society have organizational structure that is not suitable for truly democratic processes (e.g. military, police, hospitals, and various industrial and business institutions). This argument would be explored by analyzing four interrelated questions: what kind of institution the school is, why children go to school, how schooling is organized and executed, and what is to be learned in schools? Second, after providing a rather gloomy view on the role of democracy in schools, I analyze the potentials schools have regarding provision of the skills on which democratic practices depend. Building further on the tripartite division of “education for democracy” presented earlier (Biesta, 2006), I identify and delineate basic “skills” that are essential for democratic practice that could workably be implemented in school. The final argument is that only way to “higher quality democracy” or “learning democracy” (Biesta, 2011) in society is through strategic development of concrete competencies in school that support democratic way of thinking. After all, regardless of good and just intentions, democracy is meaningless if choices, debates, and decision making processes are characterized by unreasonably high levels of poor judgment, lack of basic human values, or unfortunate communicative skills. Nevertheless, it is important to note that identification of the skills that could meaningfully be implemented in school settings still would
“Schooling through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities / 3 not imply that schools, under any condition, might be characterized as democratic in nature. The overall point is simple: although the value of democracy is unquestionably recognized in this paper, there still exist clear limits of which contexts can be called democratic and labeled accordingly. As any theoretical idea, the present proposition does not represent an entirely novel approach in the sense that discussions considering this theme has been recorded earlier (Schou, 2001). Nevertheless, although the awareness about difficulties to implement democratic principles in traditional school is not entirely new (White, 1986; Sarason, 1986; Miller, 2002), it is possible that it has been neglected and partially abandoned due to powerful (political) rhetoric that combines two inheritably positive words together. Hence, considering the importance of definitional accuracy in science, the present paper explores the possibility that these ideas (i.e. school as institution and democracy as a process) are not entirely compatible and consequently should not be paired in the same sentence for rhetorical purposes and political gains. Democracy: necessary and sufficient conditions The idea of democracy, as an aim of achieving fair living conditions for most people, has its historical baggage in the sense that it is loaded with many different meanings and forms. The long tradition of democracy is logical considering that one of the very reasons for “inventing” democracy in the first place is probably related to minimizing the power of the few and establishing or instituting a somewhat just decision making process at all levels of social interaction. Over the years, the idea of democracy has grown in complexity and forms and discussions about what democracy is and is not have been a matter of continuous debate (Schmitter & Karl, 1991). Notwithstanding the existence of many different types
of democratic arrangements, and the fact that providing an all-around definition of democracy directly represent “mission impossible”, it is nevertheless possible to simplify the subject and identify a few core conditions that are necessary for the development of the democratic practice. The first one is the notion of free speech and the opportunity to promote one’s own position without experiencing legal or any kind of other institutional sanctions, including normative influence of other influential people. This condition has its roots in the humanistic movement and later in the writings of Enlightenment philosophers who tended to promote an overly individualistic starting point for the development of democracy. Regardless of historical tension and differences between early individualistic and later collectivistic, pragmatic, liberal, or participatory forms of democracy, it is fair to say that in all truly democratic contexts the arguments are commonly promoted and weighted against each other, with the opportunity to change or modify one’s own position if the exchange of arguments (i.e. debate) results in conviction that some alternative point of view represents a better option. The second necessary condition for democracy is the presence of voting or election of some kind, implying thus an existence of a (real) choice among several available options. Voting or election is further guided by some general principles such as (1) all people, groups, or units should be represented, (2) one unit one voice (i.e. equal worth of each citizen), and (3) representatives are linked to the masses. The third core condition is that different types of power that tend to overarch each society or any specific context should be separated, scattered, or decentralized in order to prevent unlimited power in the hands of one person or one dominant group (e.g. separation of powers on legislative, executive, and judicial). These core and necessary conditions for establishment of democracy resulted in many
4 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 different types and subtypes of collective arrangements that are around the world labeled as democratic (e.g. direct, representative, presidential, parliamentary, and constitutional among many others). Based on necessary conditions it is easy to agree that the idea of democracy is noble in the sense that democratic conditions promote emancipation of suppressed voices. However, identifying the necessary conditions represent only a starting point in the specific analysis of democratic activities. In other words, these simple conditions are necessary, but hardly sufficient in order to characterize one specific context as democratic in nature. It is clear that core democratic conditions require people’s active participation (Hart, 2013). Thus, democracy is better revealed if it is analyzed as a matter of degree or quality, compared to categorical judgments that evaluate specific contests in terms of “yes” (i.e. democratic) and “no” (i.e. non-democratic) labels. It follows that necessary conditions such as voting, representation, weighting of votes, and separation of powers, only represent a starting point and should always be supplemented with the continuous analysis of the manner in which democratic processes are truly realized and applied. True democracy is the combination of legislative or institutional directions that secure participation of individuals or groups and the manner in which arguments are promoted, discussed and weighed against each other. In other words, after fulfillment of the basic necessary conditions listed above, it is the quality of interaction between actors, degree of achieved intersubjectivity, and the constancy of the democratic debates that most accurately describes the degree of democratic climate in any given context (Arendt, 1961). The ultimate goal is the decision making process that is stripped of institutionalized domination and characterized by the absence of controlling power that might be embedded in the cultural backbone of any given context
or invested in specific individuals. At this point, the limits of democracy in general and democracy in schools in particular are most visible. Thus, the practical applications that indeed secure just power distribution among different individuals/groups in society as well as in schools are, and always would represent, a real challenge for democratic participation and governance. Limitations of “democracy through education” The idea of “democracy through education” is in the present paper examined by analyzing the four very simple, yet basic, questions: what kind of institution is the school, why children go to school, how schooling is organized and executed, and what is to be learned in schools? The first essential question is: what kind of institution is the school? This question is important considering that conditions for development of democratic practices must always be seen in the light of the given framework or context. Thus, the analysis of the internal structure of any institution, society, or any other context is decisive in understanding potentials and limitations of democratic processes. Bearing in mind the necessary conditions for development of democracy listed earlier, the first aspect that collides with core democratic principles is that choices are restricted by the absence of elections and voting procedures concerning school practices that are meaningful to children. Although elections do exist in the form of pupil’s representatives in school councils, there is a reason to believe that these practices are executed in a fairly automatic and non-engaging manner (e.g. Tursunović, 2005). Thus, despite the fact that children represent children in these contexts, the school organizational structure limits these debates, at least when it comes to important matters. One of the consequences of such practice is that many important decisions that influence
“Schooling through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities / 5 parents and children and to some degree professionals in school, are not internally formed. Although the power and influence in decision making processes fluctuate between school, municipality, region, and state, the perspectives of children or parents are rarely taken into consideration, at least in the early phases when “things” are discussed in the light of pro and contra arguments. Indeed, it is easy to agree that current literature on decision making process in schools is mostly about teachers and principals and less about children and parents, and the reluctance to involve them in democratic processes (Mncube, 2009). The nature of elective procedures in schools is connected to a second important obstructing aspect, namely the fact that there exists no direct link between masses or users (children or parents) and representatives or those in power (e.g. professionals such as teachers and principals). One of the most important premises for democracy is that those who have power originate from the same group of people that they represent. This means that democratic representatives per definition should not be members of the completely another group, having perhaps other interests. As expected, the situation where there is no elective link between different groups is likely to produce asymmetric roles in terms of power, responsibility, interests, and ultimately goals. One should remember that the democratic process is characterized by the manner in which those in power obtained their position. This also means that elected representatives can be called accountable for their decisions by the masses who invested their trust in them. None of these descriptions even remotely applies in the relation between children/parents and school employees. Simply stated, the fact that professionals in schools do not represent children and parents logically impedes the possibility to characterize school as a democratic arena.
The third obstructing aspect that is not compatible with core democratic conditions is that power in school is centralized and embedded in the hands of the principal and few other individuals. True democratic contexts are characterized by division of power in the sense that authority is not solely invested in one particular person or group. The results of these arrangements are that various participants in traditional school setting do not have equal rights and the real opportunity to influence the existing conditions. It follows that the effects of the argument-based debates and discussions that have a real chance to alter established circumstances in school are severely limited due to sharp divisions between interests various actors have and a centralized power hierarchy in the school. The absence of meaningful debates that might produce a change is not only reserved to the relation between children and adults, but is equally applicable to communication pattern among all stakeholders in school, also including external relationships such as parents and officials in the municipality. This is understandable considering that professionals in schools are sandwiched between user groups such as children and parents on the one side and officials on the other. In fact, there exist multiple sandwiches in this system considering multilevel arrangement of those who influence daily practice in school; ranging from municipality, governmental bodies, and all the way to international influences. This point emphasizes the lack of community decision-making in traditional education, which is incidentally one of the main pillars on which alternative, liberal, and truly democratic schooling is based (Stronach & Piper, 2008). And finally, the case for “democracy through education” is also weak based on the fact that school as a public institution is also increasingly driven by evidence based knowledge and data from research (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). It follows that decision
6 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 making is based on information that is available only to persons higher up in the decisional hierarchy. These decisional bodies have formal power but also a societal mandate and responsibility to organize daily procedures in school. Based on this accountability aspect, the truly democratic discussion about alternative courses of action that originate from children or parents might in school settings frequently be perceived as costly in terms of time, effort, and attainment of intended goals. These statements might be perceived as a caricature of the existing conditions and practices in schools in general. Furthermore one could object to the present arguments by saying that a school’s leadership follows directions of democratically elected governmental bodies, hence democratic governance in school. However, governments and school leaders have their own interests and represent a completely different group than children and parent, inaugurating thus a practice where participation of users is restricted. As noted in the introduction, internal organization of schools differ little from many other similar institutions in society that are based on direct chain of command or efficacy of delivering results. Taking these points together (no link between users and those in power, clear hierarchy, absence of real choice, rigid internal structure, clear top-down mandate and responsibility, strong external influence that is imposed on users), it is clear that the development of truly democratic practices in school are at present severely restricted due to internal organization and basic premises upon which traditional schooling is based. Hence, the incompatibility between democracy and traditional school is logical from the perspective of school history (Miller, 2002) and school internal organization considering the fact that school settings are in many cultural contexts characterized by having a clear hierarchy at all levels of the decision making process (Yilmaz, 2009).
The second important question that shows the limitations of “education through democracy” is associated with the issues of autonomy: “why children go to school”? It is fair to say that this question is not an issue for debate between adults and children at any point during early childhood. Children from early ages are programed to take educational steps and to participate in general schooling. In many cultural contexts eight to 10 years of schooling are mandatory indicating the absence of the real choice. This premise, which is often taken for granted, implies coercion and is incompatible with the core democratic principles (Noddings, 2001). In addition to motivational aspects of attending school, the choice of a specific school might also, in practice, be severely restricted by the workings of the dominating governmental or practical concerns (Herbst, 2006). I am certain that an attentive reader at this point realizes that I am not arguing that these conditions should be changed, allowing young children to freely determine their future by choosing schoolfree childhood. Propositions of this kind are neither realistic nor useful. I am merely describing the existing conditions in schools, the premises that guide school organization as they are, and emphasizing the points on which these conditions collide with democratic principles. Thus, I am simply pointing out that schools are composed of groups of stakeholders that by definition have no other choice than to conform to existing conditions when it comes to the question of “why go to school”. It is easy to see that origins of such conformity (i.e. the lack of real choice) create conditions that can hardly be described as democratic in nature. It follows that if school truly aspires to deserve a label of being a democratic arena, the participation in school activities should be voluntary. Indeed a rare example of such practice is the widely known Summerhill school where children attend lessons and classes on voluntary bases. It is not than surprising
“Schooling through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities / 7 that Summerhill school administration calls the school “the oldest child democracy in the world” and their educational idea that is “still ahead of its time” (www.summerhillschool. co.uk). There are certainly good arguments to call the Summmerhill concept a true democratic considering the high level of student’s autonomy and the ability to influence decision making process and their own situation as a student (see Stronach & Piper, 2008). However, Summerhill can hardly be an example of mainstream schooling that is targeted in the present article. Hence, the answer to children attending “ordinary school” concerning the “why” question must inevitably take a patronizing reply such as “it is good for you and your future”, “all children must go to school”, or something equally undemocratic. Such lack of autonomy in traditional educational settings when it comes to behavioral causality hardly establishes a valid ground for development of democratic practice. Thus, when it comes to the issue of “why go to school” (i.e. motivation and internal locus of causality) it is easy to argue that none of the previously listed core, necessary, and sufficient processes are a part of, or even remotely detectable, in traditional schooling. Third, the manner in which school activities are organized and executed does not seem very democratic in nature either (i.e. the “how” question). Organization of the daily school program is a part of multilevel planning that has a prolonged timeframe. It follows that the organization of practice is planned well ahead of its execution (i.e. teaching and educational guidance as a part of daily routine). The “how” question is not a matter of spontaneous decisions that might fluctuate based on the strengths of the arguments coming from the various groups such as assistants, children, and parents. The decision making process is, in most (relevant) cases, closed a long time ahead of the moment when various stakeholders are confronted
with “this is the way of how we are going to do things”. Most methodologies in school are in chosen in advance by teachers and there is in general very little possibility for input from parents or children. This is understandable considering that the democratic decision making process is costly (e.g. time and efforts) and does not necessary results in unanimous resolution. This nondemocratic organization is also logical considering that schooling represents a complex combination of contextual or cultural traditions of every given region, basic pedagogical view of fundamental issues attached to children’s upbringing, epistemological issues on valid or useful knowledge, and international movements or ideologies that tend to shape directions in which each specific country is headed. Formulated in this fashion, it is understandable that the possibilities to discuss daily operations in terms of organization or execution in a truly democratic manner are severely limited in the realm of traditional schooling (see Stronach & Piper, 2008, for description of liberal schooling). Nevertheless, this situation where decisions are reached ahead of time and in time where users can alter them clearly collides with the core democratic principles listed earlier. Finally, the fourth line of argument that shows the limitations of the “education through democracy” idea considers the question of what sort or type of knowledge is to be learned in schools. The roots of this epistemological never-ending discussion are longstanding and easily detectable in the course of educational history. One of the most fundamental educational challenges during the entire history of schooling is related to finding a balance between advance selected of knowledge and the stimulation of knowledge or affinities that learners already possess. Regardless of the chosen direction or the weighting among different types of knowledge, it has always been reasonably clear that learners have minimal influence of what is to be learned, at least
8 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 when it comes to mainstream schooling. The choice of subjects and curriculum that covers main subjects in school is typically selected by a third party, usually situated in the higher levels of educational hierarchy. Curriculum in most situations is fixed and pre-approved in the top-down fashion, resembling nutrition advice adults have for children (“eat” this – it is good for you). The curriculum is also frequently selected based on general and a predetermined understanding of what kind of knowledge is fitting for children in general rather than adapted curriculum that reflect needs, interests, and affinities of specific children or groups. Similar to the question of “how”, the approach to the “what” question is understandable. The choice of “what” is to be learned is based on traditions that reflect years of established views of valid knowledge. These decisions are not accidental, for they reflect the historical background of any given society at large, and the guiding norms and principles that effectively define the relationship between various actors. However, these traditional and established practices regarding the choice of valid knowledge reliably reinforce the authority of teacher at the expense of the processes that promote democratic conduct. Thus, corresponding to the conclusion to all three previously discussed issues in this section, it is easy to see that the answer to the “what” question does not support an application of truly democratic practices in school. Potentials for “democracy through education”: identification and stimulation of basic skills As noted earlier, democracy depends on two basic conditions: (1) necessary structural and contextual arrangements that are embedded in legislation or societal structure, presiding in any given context and (2) people’s individual or collective skills that promote democratic practice. In the first part of the paper I have argued that organization
of the mainstream or traditional schooling in terms of fundamental questions (what, why, and how) directly blocks the possibility that school, at any rate, can be called democratic arena. The argument is based upon the simple observation that traditional means of schooling does not possess the necessary structural and contextual conditions for development of democracy. This is a logical conclusion based on the premises that originate from the analysis of “school internal structure” and “necessary conditions for democracy”. However, considering the fact that school is an arena where all aspects of knowledge are central, the clear learning potentials lie in the systematic teaching of skills that support active democratic practice (Lenzi et al., 2014). Thus, the fact that schools at present do not fulfill basic requirements in order to be labeled “democratic context”, does not automatically imply that skills needed for practicing democracy couldn’t successfully be taught at school. After all, sufficient conditions for development of democracy mentioned earlier are mostly about competencies and skills. It follows that the most appropriate place for developing basic democratic abilities is in institutions that are designed to promote learning. Insisting on developed cognitive and affective skills as an important aspect of practicing democracy implies that basic necessary conditions are not sufficient on their own (Csapó, 2001). The ultimate aim should not only be mere democracy where voices of people are heard, but rather a “quality democracy” and decision making based on fundamental skills that promote democratic thinking. However, one of the obstacles for systematic training of democratic skills in schools is that traditional propositions about this issue at overly theoretical without providing a clear direction of what exactly should be improved in practice (Gutmann, 1987). In the following I will propose and briefly describe the four basic necessary aspects of “quality democracy”
“Schooling through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities / 9 and emphasize their connection to democracy and learning: basic knowledge, basic values, deliberative communication, and critical thinking. The first basic element of “quality democracy” is the concept of knowledge (Csapó, 2001). This is based on the premise that promoted views should have an easily recognizable link to some sort of knowledge, information, understanding and similar. Debates that are empty of historical background, factual descriptions, updated information, or basic sociological perspectives on various contextual arrangements between people encourage short term thinking and decisions that might be proven unbeneficial over time. The manner in which knowledge is obtained, processed, and applied is not a mechanical process but rather represents a skill that could be developed strategically in order to support “quality democracy”. Schools are types of institutions that have an explicit mandate to address this issue and train learners basic skills to promote thinking which is compatible with democratic premises. Thus, schools have a potential to implement knowledge-based discussions that result in concrete decision making in almost all traditional subjects. By “forcing” young people to fill their propositions with some sort of knowledge-based arguments, schools are directly developing pupil’s skills that are necessary for “educated” decision making and subsequent democratic and civic participation. However, although knowledge represents an important starting point for democratic discussions, it is nevertheless only one aspect of “quality democracy”. Knowledge based discussion needs to be supplemented with other important aspects, taking into consideration that decisions made solely on knowledge could easily be destructive or “blind”. Thus, the second basic element of “quality democracy” refers to values that tend to accompany almost any cognitive endeavor. Knowledge
seldom represents a mere cognitive activity that is separated from having some kind of value loaded perspective, individual or collective position, or normative angle. It follows that increasing the knowledge-base of young people without simultaneously increasing complementary values that assure the defensible use of these skills is risky in regards to the direction in which each society is heading. Expressed more bluntly, without proper values, the propositions and actions of knowledgeable people could be dangerous and destructive for society. Certainly, at this point a logical question arises: “who is to determine the proper knowledge and which principles are proper values”? Discussions of this kind are beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is important to note that many versions of knowledge and values are acceptable in truly democratic discussions. Posing restrictions by insisting upon a very narrow definition of knowledge and values is directly undemocratic. Fortunately, valid knowledge and to some degree inherently positive values that are associated with democratic premises are not accidental, as these are the product of historical developments and the accumulation of human experiences over time (Underwood, 2001). In summation, in the process of developing basic skills in terms of knowledge and values, schools have a unique chance to educate young people in what direction discussions are headed and on what grounds the final decisions are reached. It is relatively clear that skills such as knowledge, values, and civic participation represent an important part of any democratic practice (Lenzi et al., 2014). However, democratic discussions are limited if messages are exchanged in a nonproductive manner or the channels through which knowledge and values are communicated are blocked. Thus, the third basic element of “quality democracy” refers to communication and the way in which people related to one another. Similarly
10 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 too many concepts in social sciences, the idea of communication is difficult to define, ironically because of its intuitive and common sense in nature. Furthermore, it is widely recognized that successful or effective exchange of massages through various channels represents a difficult task in many contexts. Communication is often modified by the presence of additional processes such as power, intentions, motivations, and general skills. Notwithstanding this complexity, it is easy to see and acknowledge the important role of communication in democracy considering that the democratic process is not a lonely mission aimed at the promotion of extremely individualistic positions that are the product of cognitive isolation. On the contrary, democratic opinions are relativistic in the sense that they are created through the exchange of knowledge and values among different participants or groups. During preliminary discussions, different views are (carefully) expressed and owned positions are formed only after other, possibly confronting, perspectives are heard, processed, and weighed. Although the ability to practice a communication style that supports truly democratic discussions is certainly partly a matter of individual talents, it is nevertheless also a skill that can be thought of and strengthened in educational settings. The kind of communication that I am currently referring to is promoted in current literature by Habermas (1981) and more recently Englund (2000, 2006, 2016) and widely known under the term “deliberative communication”. The idea of deliberative communication refers to modes of social interaction where different views are met in the climate of tolerance and respect without influence of predefined authorities of any kind, with the aim of reaching some form of consensus or common ground. The ultimate goal is decision making that is based on nuanced judgments where everybody, during the previous steps, had a chance to challenge the existing conditions. As
expected, the notion of “deliberative communication” represents a cornerstone of “deliberative democracy”, although basic premises and interpretations are not unchallenged (see Dryzek, 2000). Far from representing the perfect way of deciding future courses of action, the process of deliberative communications creates majorities that are formed on the principle of coming closer to one another and by the power of increased understandings of each other arguments. Thus, the main point with communicative skills is to present clearly own positions, understand positions of others, and reduce the distance between opposing parties by finding some workable common ground. It is nevertheless important to emphasize that the success of reaching some bearable consensus directly depends on the two previously described components of “quality democracy”, namely sharing similar values and knowledge. And finally, the forth basic element of “quality democracy” refers to critical thinking (Csapó, 2001). The ability to critically assess and process incoming inputs is one of the most important skills that school has in educating young people in their preparation for future occupational and citizenship participation. Critical thinking represents an established concept in current literature as evident in the quantity of literature that covers this topic. It is also an extremely complex concept consisting of several main skills, sub skills, and dispositions (see Abrami et al., 2008) that combined emphasize human ability for “good thinking” (Pithers & Soden, 2000). Although several definitions and understandings exist, the majority of conceptualizations agree that critical thinking refers to a purposeful way of thinking that involves interpretation, evaluation, and inference of available information, including the continuous assessments of contextual influences or the nature of the underlying assumptions. A critical thinker has the ability to scrutinize information in an
“Schooling through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities / 11 open-minded and flexible manner and exhibit willingness to reconsider one’s own positions if incoming information alters the original premises. The ability to be guided by the value of available realities and flexibly adapt to existing “evidence” is the reason why critical thinking represents an essential part of the “quality democracy”. Furthermore, the conceptual connection to knowledge and deliberative communication is obvious. A critical thinker does not absorb knowledge mechanically but processes incoming information in a rather dynamic manner using continuous evaluation of the pro and con arguments. Similarly and following the basic premises of deliberative communication, a truly critical thinker applies a flexible approach and is, at any point in discussion, ready to reconsider own position if arguments suggest that alternative course of action is more suitable for present state of affairs. Brief discussion In the present paper I attempted to argue two interrelated points. The first one adopts a “calling a spade for a spade” approach and straightforwardly states that the idea of “democracy through education” is logically impossible, at least when it comes to traditional mainstream schooling. Consequently, the implicit portrayal of school as a democratic arena is theoretically and conceptually inaccurate and represents an attempt to pair, at present, incompatible terms. One should use careful and precise formulations where these two processes are coupled in the same sentence in order to avoid powerful rhetoric that is void for theoretical substance. The present analysis suggests that one cannot have it both ways simultaneously: either one has a traditional school where the possibility for core democratic processes is severely limited, or one has an alternative educational organization that accommodates basic democratic principles. In other words, at the point where
democracy is truly implemented in school, traditional school stops to exist. The second point argued in this paper was that traditional schools, instead of talking about democracy, should systematically and strategically develop means to educate children in basic skills that support development of democratic practices. Indeed, children in primary and secondary school should not learn specific occupations but rather skills that are necessary for execution of the whole range of different professions later in life. Analogous, schools should focus on developing democratic habits (Hansen & James, 2016) that are needed for practicing civic duties in adult life instead of creation of artificial settings where children can “play” democracy. Providing children with arenas for democracy backfires if the emphasis is not primarily on the development of abilities to develop democratic skills (Kahne & Westheimer, 2014). Based on this logic, I have suggested that educational institutions should aim higher and beyond “mere democracy” where basic civil rights are defensibly, but mechanically, represented. Educational institutions should rather aim toward “quality democracy” that is based on skills such as credible knowledge, human values that are developed in the course of history, deliberative communication, and “good thinking”. However, the development of democratic skills depends on the contextual features, i.e. the dominating view on the children’s role in the learning process that the school has and the manner in which any particular school is organized. It is meaningless to teach the above mentioned democratic skills in the strict traditional educational settings that are cemented by outdated perspectives on teaching process and the asymmetric power relations between various actors. It follows that liberal or progressive education that has users in centrum represents a more suitable context for development of necessary democratic skills comparing to settings where
12 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 power and decision making is centralized. The challenging issue that is obvious and connected to arguments promoted in the first part of the paper lies in the practical difficulties to unite the development of the above listed skills with the organizational structure and established practice of any given context. Nevertheless, schools should strategically and systematically implement democratic skills in all subjects and create conditions that naturally stimulate processes that are compatible with “quality democracy” Limitations Some limitations of the preset reasoning should be acknowledged. First, I can easily be accused of making a caricature of existing conditions in school by simplifying the concept of democracy and ignoring contextual, historical, and cultural variations that exist in relation to both themes (i.e. school and democracy). Although there are some merits in recognizing this objection, the simple answer is that the nature of the presented issue in this paper calls for generalizations and simplifications. The applied logic here goes beyond specific instances and aims to highlight the fundamental global inconsistencies in pairing democracy and schools in the same sentence. Thus, notwithstanding objections about oversimplification, I still believe that limits of “education through democracy” (i.e. practices of democratic principals in schools) are poorly analyzed and neglected based upon the expense of powerful rhetoric that reinforces romanticized and idealized practice of democracy in schools. Second, similarly to many theorists who write about democracy, I fail to address the question of motivation. Although skills are important, democratic participation ultimately rests on engagement in causes of importance. Thus, future analyses should include motivation and engagement in descriptions of the “quality democracy”. And third, it is theoretically problematic to
condition true democracy on the existence of skills. The obvious challenging question is: must one possess skills in order to practice democracy? Or more bluntly: Can one practice democracy and be stupid (i.e. lack knowledge, have poor judgment and values, and be short sighted). Without attempting to directly answer this question, I again emphasize that educational institutions should strategically strive toward establishing a more systematic conceptual link between subjects in the school and the manner in which they promote development of democratic skills. Democratic process can backfire if people are easily seduced by charismatic leaders that exploit the workings of short term thinking, personal gains, intimidations, fears, and other processes that are reliably proven to cause societal injustice and trouble. Conclusion Imagine one king or dictator that rules the country X. Influenced by historic developments, he finds some distinct and separated forum where certain individuals can discuss some matters in the democratic fashion. None of these discussions have real effect on the manners in which the country is ruled. Can this country be called democratic solely based on the existence of hints that resemble democratic process? Similarly, increased rights of the users (parents and children) in the school that is evident in the last few decades still does not mean that traditional schooling is able to accommodate core principles of democracy. The use of democracy in school settings resembles selling strategies to place a pretty young girl on the hood of the car with the aim of increasing the attractiveness of the car. Pairing positive terms with one another, even in the cases where there is no conceptual connection between the items, tends to increase attractiveness of both. The only way in which traditional schools can truly be democratic is radical and involves its termination
“Schooling through Democracy”: Limitations and Possibilities / 13 in the current form, and the establishment of the alternative, progressive and liberal approaches to organization of the educational institutions. Needless to say, this is not realistic. Alternatively, schools could reduce empty rhetoric about democracy and communicate more realistic expectations about their contribution in forming democratic society (Biesta, 2011). In sum, schools should focus on what they do best: educate children in skills that are proven to support civic participation later in adult life.
References Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134. Arendt, H. (1961). Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought. London, Faber and Faber. Backman, E., & Trafford, B. (2007). Democratic governance of schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Beane, J. A. & Apple, M. W. (1999). The Case for Democratic Schools. In M. W. Apple and J. A. Beane (eds), Democratic Schools: Lessons from the Chalk Face. Buckingham: Open University Press. Biesta G. J. J. (2006). Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. Colorado, Paradigm, Boulder, CO. Biesta, G. J. J. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society. Education, lifelong learning, and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers Csapó, B. (2001). Cognitive aspects of democratic thinking. In R. Soder, J. I. Goodlad, & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), Developing democratic character in the young (pp. 126-151). San-Francisco: Jossey Bass. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: University Press. Englund, T. (2000). Rethinking democracy and education: Towards an education of deliberative citizens. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 305-313. Englund, T. (2006). Deliberative communication: A pragmatist proposal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 503-520. Englund, T. (2016). On moral education through deliberative communication. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(1), 58-76, Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Hansen, D. T. & James, C. (2016). The importance of cultivating democratic habits in schools: enduring lessons from democracy and education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(1), 94-112. Harber, C. (1997). International developments and the rise of education for democracy. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 27(2), 179-191.
14 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Hart, R. A. (2013). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. New York: UNICEF. Herbst, J. (2006). School choice and school governance : A historical study of the United States and Germany. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2014). Teaching democracy. In E. W. Ross (Ed.). Social studies curriculum: purposes, problems, and possibilities (pp. 353-371). Nye York: Suny press. Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Sharkey, J., Mayworm, A., Scacchi, L., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2014). How school can teach civic engagement besides civic education: The role of democratic school climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3-4), 251-261. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F. and Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research (Santa Monica, CA: RAND). Available online at: http:// www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html, accessed 12. December 2016. Miller, R. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education and democracy after the 1960s. Albany: State University of New York. Mncube, V. (2009). The perceptions of parents of their role in the democratic governance of schools in South Africa: Are they on board? South African Journal of Education, 29(1), 83-103. Noddings, N. (2001). Public schooling democracy and religious dissent. In R. Soder, J. I. Goodlad, & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), Developing democratic character in the young (pp. 152-169). San-Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press. Pithers, R. T. & Soden, R. (2000). Critical thinking in education: a review. Educational Research, 42(3), 237-249. Sarason, S. B. (1986). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is... and is not. Journal of democracy, 2(3), 75-88. Schou, L. R. (2001). Democracy in Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 20(4), 317-329. Straume, I. S. (2016). Democracy, education and the need for politics. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 35(1), 29-45. Stronach, I. & Piper, H. (2008). ‘Can Liberal Education Make a Comeback? The Case of “Relational Touch” at Summerhill School’. American Educational Research Journal 45(1), 6–37. Tursunović, M. (2005). The Swedish school as an arena for nurturing the democratic impulse. Kakenien Revised, 1, 1-10. Underwood, J. (2001). Choice, the American common school, and democracy. In R. Soder, J. I. Goodlad, & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), Developing democratic character in the young (pp. 170-181). San-Francisco: Jossey Bass. White, P. (1986). Self-respect, self-esteem, and the school: a democratic perspective on authority. Teachers College Record, 88(1), 95-106. Yilmaz, K. (2009). Democracy through learner-centered education: A Turkish perspective. International Review of Education, 55(1), 21-37.
A PARADIGM FOR AVOIDING SPURIOUS OUTCOMES Joel Snell
Kirkwood College There are significant boundary problems when comparing spurious with more accurate science. Numerous variables impact on creating a product (like a medication) or service (a special education strategy) that is valid and reliable. Thus, the author has tried to design a paradigm that when one is researching a new area as an example, the individual researcher can point to where they are in the process. Hopefully, this strategy will clarify a more orderly direction, one that may take in this chaotic/order oriented reality.
Spurious means findings that results are not valid. It may also mean the theory and methodology is not sound or has not yet been accepted. Nor, is it consistent or reliable. In contemporary parlance, it is “junk.” (Snell, J. and M. Marsh, 2007)
Introduction: Due to the brevity of this essay so much will be condensed or avoided so that the basic spine of the research frame is clearer. Thus, one can complain about missing a special portion of some part of the discussion and yet know where to use this if the information is not refutable. We will not describe the dimensions of reality. The definition and the steps are so overwhelming that this author will step over this stage for the sake of the essence of the paradigm. Nearly, every paragraph may contain debatable statements. However, what is important is what may be done to move the process of research forward by having a glimpse in terms of where we are going. It is more like a sign post than a path. (Snell, J. Cangemi, J. and C. Kowalski,2008) Additionally, nearly all the terms are one’s that were addressed to the reader in graduate school. Glossy multi-syballic definitions are avoided. As an example, when the word science is used here it means searching for natural causes to a valid outcome. That is all that it means. Although numerous sidebars, rejoinders, and intertwining discussions may have emerged elsewhere, it is meant to be avoided here.
Description. From the above, the author suggests 9 positions. They tell the researcher where they are in a larger process. This does not mean that it applies to all scientists in all situations. Some of the exceptions will be discussed based on space. It will also help science writers and readers where the research is located in both the scientific and wider public. Thus, a situational definition emerges about the state of the science at the time it is being conducted. Valid means this medication or other subject is true for the time at hand. Or, this medication is accurate. Reliable indicates that this medication is consistent with the treatment of an illness. It is transparent and falsifiable. Thus, the topic is the process of acceptance or rejection by the scientists and others in a community. (The area of medical and pharmaceutical research will often be used here although, the scientific method may apply in numerous areas including the social science, education, and related. 15
16 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Research Acceptance Paradigm 1.Valid/ Scenario Theory/Valid This product (medication) comes from substantial research and used in the public without problems, when taken in the correct dosage and time. Side effects and related can be traced back to other variables. It is not likely to be brought to court for a lawsuit. It may be replaced in the future through process of research and the improvement of an already helpful drug or by law in which a generic is available to the public. In reverse fashion, a negative trigger is just as applicable. Smoking cigarettes is highly correlated with lung cancer and may act as intervening variable in other pathologies. The basic premise is that not all chemicals are healthy to ingest in humans and/or creatures. This is one and has just relatively recently been placed in this position. Numerous court fights have emerged from this corporate product. It is legal to ingest in one’s system depending on age. The addictive component is nicotine. The carcinogenetic is tar composed of 4,000 chemicals. It kills. 60 chemicals are thought to change the human cell DNA and the cells start changing. The cell’s immunity no longer fights the virulent cell pathogens to denigrate the order that enhances health. So, a cigarette or related is lighted flooding pathogens that antagonizes cells to fight back. Over time, it kills. It also spreads (metastizes)through the lungs and other portions of the body. The above explanation has taken decades, if not years to be found acceptable. Methodology/Valid Cross sectional studies appear to be used on large random and purposive samples. There have been classical, double blind experiments on large random, randomized, and purposive studies. It has also been used on lab animals as well as other animals. All the
above are acceptable science. Numerous studies have replicated the above. Few or none have been false. Outcome/Valid Some individuals smoke and use other harmful chemicals especially in large doses. They survive according to their actuarial mortality. However, control groups with similar life styles, demographics, and psychographics appear to live longer and healthier lives. A warning is placed on a tobacco products. This may change, but at the time this is written it is acceptable. Knowledge workers, science writers, the general press and for this essay education is that cigarettes are harmful to one’s health. All of this has taken really thousands of years to come to this outcome. (______,2014.) 2.Mixture Scenario A new finding has a tremendous ripple effect. Sides emerge about the finding. Or, an old phenomena is revitalized and refurbished. Further, an organized theory or body of thought is carried on for generations and is internalized into the culture. Many believe and even more do not. However, many newspapers carry information about it every day. It is astrology. It has emerged in literature, music, popular culture, and even politics. The Reagan presidential political administration was influenced by astrology through the president’s wife Nancy, a supporter. Theory/ Mixed At the moment of birth, a certain invisible force impacts a humans’ personality. It is based on geo-centrism. This means that the sun revolves around the earth. Relationships and human affairs are changed due to changes in heavenly celestial bodies. Research and charts are created to suggest to the respondent what may happen at a future date. If valid, this is incredible. One
A Paradigm For Avoiding Spurious Outcomes / 17 can determine alternative strategies if future outcomes mean death, despair, or dismemberment. Standard scientific protocol has not supported geo-centrism or valid outcomes about future events. Signs such as Cancer and Leo may overlap and not be mutually exclusive. The body of knowledge has not held up to standard scientific protocol. However, it still remains popular with nearly 25% of the U.S.A. population. Commercial trade or therapy reading is a legal available service in many large urban areas. (Pillai, 2014. 1-14) Methodology/ Mixed An individual is grouped by astrological signs to see if matched by non-astrological control group, if a characteristic emerges that supports the astrological theory. Leo’s are thought to lack leadership skills. How do they compare with other leaders of other signs? Is there a significant difference? Cross sectional studies may be conducted. Numerous other strategies have been to see if the theory is valid. This is not the case. Other studies more strongly suggest that astrology does not work. However, it is still a tool used in alternative medicine. (Pillai, 2014, 1-14) Outcome/Mixed There are numerous “sciences” as well as non-FDA approved medications that are lawfully traded among consumers and producers. For many these remedies, will be continually available because they are not defined as illegal. Their placebo value may also be helpful. However, many cannot be outright rejected because a new finding in another area may make the mixed results become valid with the new research findings. It remains in the mixed category for good reasons. (Pillai, M. 2014:1-14)
3.Spurious/Scenario Theory/ Spurious Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a board certified medical researcher discovered that if infants are vaccinated with MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) they are significantly likely to develope autism. This is a profoundly serious illness where neural development is slowed or negatively impacted. Both cognitive and non-verbal behavior is also tarnished. The theory then is ingestion of MMR vaccine leads to significant increases in autism in children. Methodology/ Spurious Wakefield manipulated the data to appear that the ingestion of MMR became a major cause in an infant developing autism. This finding was so important, that it was published in Lancet. This periodical is one of the top journals in its field. The media spread the news immediately throughout the world. The vaccine corporation sued. The findings, the prestige of the journal, the size of the lawsuit even reached tabloids. Numerous studies replicated Wakefield and did not have the same outcome even if they used the same research methods. Further, naturalistic studies found that if an infant was overlooked or did not ingest with MMR that they were significantly more likely to get measles, mumps or rubella. Journalists discovered that Wakefield’s study would support a huge lawsuit already in court against a vaccine corporation. That part of those funds would also go to Wakefield. Thus, the methodology was established to encourage a profitable outcome for Wakefield. Further, even more money was to be made by Wakefield up front if he would accept the study and conduct the fraud. Last Wakefield and another would create a home screen test to check if infants were developing autism or related and save a visit to the hospital. Profits would go to Wakefield in
18 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 the sum of what they thought would be 43 million dollars for the diagnostic kits. Outcome/ Spurious All of the above begins even earlier in the 90’s when there were rumors that MMR may be related to another serious disease. Thus, the subculture of medicine and social media were at first predisposed to something serious attached to MMR and that a prestigious journal would publish it now seems more likely. All the above took place in a period of over a decade. It is one of the worst frauds in medical history. Wakefield with a lawfully accredited MD and board certification was found guilty of fraud and lost his license to practice medicine in the United States and the United Kingdom. How many deaths and severe illnesses have been the outcome of this is only estimated. (Dominus, S.,2011) Conclusion A fraudulent study was conducted for the profit of the researcher and other parties. So how may all the above apply to astrology, cigarettes, and related. It is discouraging to read of a new study in education using computers Where the researchers claim success that the study was valid and reliable. Further, there is a suggestion (computer related) of how this may be applied to numerous student populations. (Lewis, T., 2013) But does it work? Did the computer corporation help fund the study? Are there student populations that cannot be taught because of other variables not directly related to the computer? Does a school need to hire instructors with a bachelor’s degree? Money could be saved by hiring a few teachers and numerous low wage assistants. What was the quality of the research? How was it conducted? How many students will improve in the areas most needed by
industry or other means of production? What about the quality of the teaching. At the time of this writing, the promising and profitable educational delivery does not appear to work (Lewin, T.,2013) So, it appears that we can create a 9-position table to sort out the validity and the questionable other findings. If anything, it orders some of the clutter in the chaos of research. Again, whatever the latest outcome, we have sign posts to suggest where we are into the discoveries made in education. Some may be viable and even a few others very helpful. In ways that could be serendipitous. Clearing the clutter is perhaps the most important result. References Cited ______________ (2014) “Tobacco Smoking and Cancer: The Evidence” UK: Cancer Research Dominius, S (2011 4/20) “The Crash and Burn of the Autism Guru” New York Times, Lewin, T (2013: 12/10) “ After the Setbacks, Online Courses are Rethought” New York Times Pillai, M. (2014 1/24) “The Scientific Case Against Astrology” Openthemagazine.com. Snell, J.C., Cangemi, J.P., and C. J. Kowalski (2008) Social Essays on Chaos Theory, Boston: McGraw Hill Snell, J.C. and M. Marsh (2007) “Publishing False Results in Medicine: Spurious, Discovery, and Verification Findings” Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 41, #1
CAPITALIZING ON PRE-EXISTING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT WITH FOSSILS: A GATEWAY TO GENERATE STUDENT INTEREST, PARTICIPATION, AND LEARNING Jeffrey C. Hunter
Glenville State College
M.E.Behrendt Ohio University
B.H Breithaupt
Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management
J.G. Scotchmoor
University of California Berkley The use of fossils as a tool in the classroom provide the medium in which students enthusiastically and directly engage in scientific exploration and thinking, enhancing their interest in future science curricula, and provide an avenue to develop scientific literacy. The National Research Council stated that students should have authentic experiences with natural phenomena to develop an understanding of how science is explored, while developing skills necessary in science related careers. Science teachers can use fossils as a natural-world phenomenon to support students’ learning of multiple concepts and scientific practices throughout a K-12 science curriculum through a series of hands on activities that use fossils or imprints as the tool to present various science content topics. Fossils tend to be engaging and connect learners to formal and informal learning opportunities. Key words: fossil trackways, experiential learning, hands-on learning, ecosystem lab, chemical reaction, animal speed lab
Children are drawn to fossils. Bakker (1986) lightheartedly identified “dinosauritus” as a childhood illness. Kids love to hold and play detective with fossils, as they try to interpret the fossil’s secrets (Clary & Wandersee, 2008). Borgerding (2015) suggested that preschool students enjoyed exploring fossils and interpreting what they mean. Goldfisher et al. (2015) recognized that English language learners excelled when working with fossils. Fossils present a gateway to interest and
meaningful learning with reluctant learners (Clary & Wandersee, 2008; Clary, Wandersee, & Carpinelli, 2008). “The history of science and the introduction of interesting fossils can pique the curiosity of students and transform them into interested learners (Clary, Wandersee, & Carpinelli, 2008, p. 262). While working with fossils, students learn that not all scientific investigations are experiments (Goldfisher et al., 2015). Fossils provide the medium in which students 19
20 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 enthusiastically and directly engage in scientific exploration and thinking, enhancing their interest in future science curricula, and provide an avenue to develop scientific literacy (Gano & Kinzler, 2011). Fossils provide a “gateway for learning and engagement about a diversity of topics and concepts” (Moran et al., 2015, p. 62). Teaching science requires thoughtful consideration of different ways to address biology, earth science, chemistry, physical science, and engineering standards. The National Research Council (2012) stated that students should have authentic experiences with natural phenomena to develop an understanding of how science is explored, while developing skills necessary in science related careers (Moran et al., 2015). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasize the importance of integrating conceptual knowledge, crosscutting concepts, and scientific practices throughout the K-12 curriculum (National Research Council, 2011). Through experience and casual conversation, the authors have noted the significant potential that fossils provide for meaningful learning, and that by providing actual, authentic specimens, students may experience how science is really done (Moran et al., 2015). Fossils provide students an opportunity to develop an appreciation of scientific practices in a variety of contexts, while simultaneously constructing knowledge of the natural world. It is well documented that students learn science concepts more meaningfully when they first experience a natural-world phenomenon before constructing scientific explanations (Brown & Abell, 2007; Meyer & Crawford, 2011). However, finding a unique real-world phenomenon for every science concept can be challenging. The purpose of this article is to describe how science teachers can use fossils as a natural-world phenomenon to support students’ learning of multiple concepts and scientific practices throughout a K-12 science
curriculum. Described are three activities. Each targets a discipline standard, scientific practice and crosscutting concept–(alignment between activities and standards can be found in Table 1). Although fossils are commonly used to teach earth science standards, this paper focuses on activities involving biology, chemistry, physical science, and engineering standards, with the intent to develop science teacher awareness of these connections, in which fossils can serve as a bridge for students to connect concepts and practices to natural phenomena Activity #1: The Flexible Fossil Sea-bottom Slab A fossil sea-bottom slab with shelled and or trace fossils provide a range of activities and explorations aligned with life science standards. Students may explore concepts such as classification or fossil formation, but the slabs can also be used to create critical thinking activities regarding paleoecology. Sea-bottom slabs can be collected from most marine fossil localities; local or national fossil club members are often happy to help educators acquire fossil material for educational purposes. If sea-bottom slabs are unavailable, fossil gravel obtained along the side of most mid-east coast roadways or phosphate mines can be substituted. In either case, fossilized bivalves, crinoid fragments, gastropods, shark teeth, sea urchin spines, fish bones, coral, fossilized traces (tracks, burrows, etc.) and other marine fossils may be identified. Students sort (see Activity 1: Fossil Sea-bottom Slab) through a slab or a cup of phosphate gravel under a dissecting microscope or hand lens, separating out the various biotic structures from the gravel or slab surface. Citing evidence versus inference (i.e., observation vs. interpretation), students might try to determine the habitat and niches that may have been in place.
Activity 3: Engineering Speed and the Dino
Activity 2: Chemistry Chemical Reactions
Sea-bottom Slab
Activity 1: Biology
Activity
Engineering Design MS-ETS1-4 Develop a model to generate data for iterative testing and modification of a proposed object, tool, or process such that an optimal design can be achieved.
Substances react chemically in characteristic ways. In a chemical process, the atoms that make up the original substances are regrouped into different molecules, and these new substances have different properties from those of the reactants.
Chemical Reactions MS-PS1-2 Analyze and interpret data on the properties of substances before and after the substances interact to determine if a chemical reaction has occurred.
Forces and Motion: All positions of objects and the directions of forces and motions must be described in an arbitrarily chosen reference frame and arbitrarily chosen units of size. In order to share information with other people, these choices must also be shared.
Biodiversity describes the variety of species found in Earth’s terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems.
Disciplinary Core Ideas
Ecosystems: MS-LS2-2 Construct an explanation that predicts patterns of interactions among organisms across multiple ecosystems.
Performance Expectations
-Asking questions -Analyzing and interpreting data -Using mathematics and computational thinking -Developing and using models
-Analyzing and interpreting data -Constructing explanations -Planning and carrying out investigations -Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
-Asking questions -Constructing explanations -Analyzing and interpreting data -Developing and using models -Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
Scientific Practices
Table 1 Summary of standards connected to the activities
Scale, Proportion, and Quantity: Use proportional relationships to gather information about the magnitude of properties and processes.
Energy and Matter: Matter is conserved because atoms are conserved in physical and chemical processes.
Patterns: Graphs, charts, and images can be used to identify patterns in data.
Cross-Cutting Concepts
-Science assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that are understandable through measurement and observation. -Scientific knowledge is constrained by human capacity, technology, and materials.
-Science knowledge is based upon logical and conceptual connections between evidence and explanations.
-Scientists and engineers rely on human qualities such as persistence, precision, reasoning, logic, imagination, and creativity. -Scientific knowledge is constrained by human capacity, technology, and materials.
Nature of Science
National Visual Arts Standards: Design or redesign objects, places, or systems that meet the identified needs of diverse users. Common Core Mathematics: Recognize and represent proportional relationships between quantities.
Common Core Language Arts: Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to inform about or explain the topic.
National Visual Arts Standards: Select, organize, and design images and words to make visually clear and compelling presentations.
Other Disciplines
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 21
22 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Students will identify and classify the animal fossils on each fossil slab. Most states have a department of geological survey that provides literature identifying local fossils. For example, the Ohio GeoSurvey published Fossils of Ohio (Feldmann, 1996). Students might identify brachiopods and mollusks from southeast Ohio fossil slabs and research how Ohio was once an aquatic environment. The students can then construct a hypothesis concerning the biota and environment of that ancient time. Students will infer the hypothesized paleo-ecosystem and climatic conditions, which will be compared to modern systems that may match their perception of the fossil slab habitat. Students should consider whether their observations reveal all the biota that lived in that habitat at the time. In comparison to a modern ecosystem, are all the expected life forms present on the sea-bottom slab or in the grouping of collected fossils? Students should recognize that plants and soft bodied animals (e.g. worms) are absent on the fossil slab, although the latter may be represented by trace fossils. Students should also question whether the animals on the fossil actually lived together, or did a catastrophic event pile them together? The teacher may then facilitate a discussion on the nature of science, the limits of human capacity to understand environments and climates in the past, and how knowledge can be constructed by combining creativity and imagination with careful observations and inferences. Other subject areas and skills may be integrated with this activity. Students may creatively write about how they think the habitat appeared when the organisms were living, or describe the events leading to how the fossils became embedded into the sea-bottom. Connecting to the National Visual Arts Standards, students may sketch images to improve observations enabling specimen identification, or
create a diorama showing the habitat as they think it may have appeared, expressing the evidence they are using to inform their thinking. Students will understand that modern and paleo-ecosystems contain similar niches for organisms, with producers, consumers, scavengers, and abiotic elements. Students will discuss patterns of interactions between different organisms or ecosystems. This approach addresses the NGSS scientific practices of asking questions, constructing explanations, analyzing and interpreting data, developing and using models, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Activity #2: Exploring Chemical Reactions Activity 2 requires the use of fossils rich in limestone – calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Limestone is considered a biochemical sediment. “Nearly 90% of limestone is formed from biochemical sediments secreted by marine organisms, and the remaining amount consists of chemical sediments, that precipitated directly from seawater” (Tarbuck, 2015, p. 73). If abundant, such fossils provide a useful tool for studying chemical reactions (See Activity 2a: Exothermic Reactions). Please note all lab safety precautions must be explained and followed, including personal safety equipment (goggles and gloves) and disposal. To demonstrate an exothermic reaction, students will heat a small (1 cm3) limestone fossil sample using a Bunsen burner or other heat source. Heating will behind calcium oxide (CaO). After cooling, the students should examine any changes in the physical properties of the sample, paying close attention to color and hardness. The sample should be ground and placed in a test tube of water to examine the reaction. An increase in temperature and the presence of bubbles should be seen. After the reaction is complete, the students can blow through a straw into the clear solution. As they blow, a precipitate will
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 23 form. The students should be asked to hypothesize what is happening. Through guided discussion, students will understand that they are exhaling gases, including CO2. The exhaled CO2 replaces the CO2 they removed from the sample by heating, thus regenerating the sample to its original CaCO3 form. Students will then discuss whether this example represents a physical or chemical change. Teachers will facilitate a discussion on disciplinary core ideas and cross-cutting concepts related to the behavior of atoms during chemical reactions, including the idea that matter is rearranged yet conserved The second part of the activity explores the relationship between chemistry and ecology through a consideration of the acid rain phenomenon (see Activity 2B: Exploring Chemical Reactions and Simulating Acid Rain). The students will sample local water sources such as rainwater or pond water for pH. Students will compare the local water pH (~6.5-8.5, depending on region) to that of acid rain (~4). The students will then place different types of fossil-bearing rock in a sample of local water and a sample of acetic acid or vinegar (representing acid rain). Before adding to the liquid, the naturally weathered fossils will need to be brushed with a steel drive off CO2 leaving behind calcium oxide (CaO). After cooling, the students should examine any changes in the physical properties of the sample, paying close attention to color and hardness. The sample should be ground and placed in a test tube of water to examine the reaction. An increase in temperature and the presence of bubbles should be seen. After the reaction is complete, the students can blow through a straw into the clear solution. As they blow, a precipitate will form. The students should be asked to hypothesize what is happening. Through guided discussion, students will understand that they are exhaling gases, including CO2. The exhaled CO2 replaces the CO2 they removed from the sample
by heating, thus regenerating the sample to its original CaCO3 form. Students will then discuss whether this example represents a physical or chemical change. Teachers will facilitate a discussion on disciplinary core ideas and cross-cutting concepts related to the behavior of atoms during chemical reactions, including the idea that matter is rearranged yet conserved The second part of the activity explores the relationship between chemistry and ecology through a consideration of the acid rain phenomenon (see Activity 2B: Exploring Chemical Reactions and Simulating Acid Rain). The students will sample local water sources such as rainwater or pond water for pH. Students will compare the local water pH (~6.5-8.5, depending on region) to that of acid rain (~4). The students will then place different types of fossil-bearing rock in a sample of local water and a sample of acetic acid or vinegar (representing acid rain). Before adding to the liquid, the naturally weathered fossils will need to be brushed with a steel wire brush to remove any non-CaCO3 patina. Over a span of time (days, weeks), the students should remove the samples and review the physical (rock breaks down) and chemical changes (bubbles and fizzing on the rocks) that may have occurred. Students will record their observations and consider the rate at which the rocks changed. Using the rate of breakdown, students will make inferences about the type of rock under investigation. Typically, limestone will dissolve faster than sandstone; in comparison, a non-sedimentary rock such as quartz will experience little effect. Students will identify the fossils embedded in the limestone (for southeast Ohio these include brachiopods, gastropods, and crinoids), and consider how acid rain might have affected those organisms, alive or as fossils. Would suggest a direct connection back to activity #1. With this “new” information, does this affect their previous hypotheses? Online research can
24 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 help students understand that acid rain caused by ancient volcanism changed the chemical make-up of aquatic environments, killing organisms, thereby upsetting ecological balance. If the class had completed activity #1 (The Flexible Fossil Sea-bottom Slab), an extension could include a discussion in which students examine their conclusions on the paleo-climates and determine if their models would change, based on this new understanding of rock alteration through acid rain. As with any scientific practice, students will communicate the data: record their findings, respond to written prompts, and discuss the nature-of-science concept about using empirical evidence to construct explanations. This activity addresses the NGSS standards related to chemical reactions and scientific practices (e.g. analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating scientific information). Activity #3: Speed and the Dino Activity three focuses on the speed calculation using dinosaurs and modeling. Classroom teachers often use ramps and cars to study the concept of and the calculation for speed. This example has been adapted from Breithaupt and Scotchmoor (2003) (see Activity 3: Measuring the Speed of a Dinosaur based on Preserved Trackways). Students will determine the relative speed of dinosaurs based upon reconstructed dinosaur footprints, printed on a paper roll or students can gather their own data if located in an area where trackways may be found. Through a series of discussions to construct a mathematical model to solve this problem, students will consider the variables detected while viewing the footprints, especially the foot length and distance between footprints. Students will discuss the relationship between the length of the limb and the maximum distance between footprints, focusing on three
variables: 1) foot length (FL), stride length (SL), and hip height (H). Students will investigate relationships among the identified variables by measuring their own foot length, stride length, and hip height. To determine average stride length, students will walk without shoes in sand, or by stepping in water or water based paint and walking on dry ground, paper (long strips of butcher paper or newsprint work well for this) or cardboard, both with a consistent stride for a given distance. Measurements will be taken and multiple trials recorded. Students repeat the procedure by running at half speed, again performing multiple trials. Students will consider potential relationships among the variables by comparing data from the whole class, does a consistent ratio exists in the data? Students should discover a relatively consistent ratio between leg length and hip height (1:4). Exploring the relationship between stride length and hip height reveals a different ratio between running and walking. The teacher will introduce the concept that the SL/H ratio can be used to determine a relative speed (2.9 – animal is running). If differentiating instruction for more advanced students, actual miles per hour could be calculated. (See Wright and Breithaupt, 2002, “Walking in their footsteps and what they left us: Dinosaur tracks and traces in Dinosaurs: the science behind the stories, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA” for a good summary on dinosaur footprints and calculations. It also includes papers by other researchers who have done calculations related to dinosaur footprints, in particular R.M. Alexander.) Students will use the data to estimate the relative speed of the dinosaurs. Having only foot length and stride length, students will use the FL/H ratio (1:4) to determine the dinosaur’s approximate hip height, which then can be used to calculate the SL/H ratio to determine the dinosaurs’ relative speed.
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 25 It should be important to point out that this ratio only works for bipedal animals and can vary depending on bipeds (e.g., different sized theropods and ornithopods). (See Wright and Breithaupt, 2002 for a short summary.) Students could discuss how it might differ for a quadruped. Students can create models of the dinosaur leg structure based on available data (length and width of stride). Cardboard, scraps of wood, plastic sheeting, balloons, meter sticks or other available material can be used to create moving models of the dinosaur leg or the entire dinosaur, which addresses a visual arts standard. This activity focuses on a mathematical model development to determine a dinosaur’s relative speed by using proportional relationships, a standard for mathematics and cross-cutting concept in the NGSS, and for the NGSS engineering design standard related to developing and testing a process to solve a problem. The NGSS scientific practices of asking questions, using mathematics and computational thinking, developing and using models, and analyzing and interpreting data are included in the activity. For more advanced versions of this activity, see Over (1995). Conclusions Conner et al. (2013) described a two-week long project that evoked a strong level of participation and learning, in which students first collected and then analyzed fossils identities and frequencies. Fossils motivated the students to learn about the rocks, population studies, and taphonomy, leading to final PowerPoint reports that included hypotheses supported by facts and evidence that the students gathered. These activities met many NGSS science practices (e.g., asking questions,
planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing and interpreting data, constructing explanations, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information), disciplinary core ideas (e.g., LS4.A and ESS2.B), and crosscutting concepts (e.g., Patterns and Scale, Proportion, and Quantity). Fossil specimens are generally easy to acquire, whether collected by the students, obtained through fossil clubs, or through collection loans by natural history museums (Cook et al 2014). Any type of fossil may be utilized. The fossils do not need to be fragile or fancy. Coprolites, or fossil feces, have provided many interactive, motivating, and interest-provoking activities that can lead to topics and explorations in geological time, ecology, environmental science, food chains, and evolution (Clary & Wandersee, 2011). In addition, many activities have been developed for paleontology and are readily available through an internet search. However, it is not the purpose of this paper to list fossil activities. The described activities address a variety of science and engineering content standards and cross-cutting concepts practices. The authors are not advocating that fossils be used in every lesson or unit throughout a curriculum, or that these specific activities must be included. Rather, fossils tend to be engaging and connect learners to formal and informal learning opportunities. Students find connections between concepts and familiar phenomenon. Science teachers are encouraged to engage in dialogue, to share how other natural-world phenomena connect to multiple standards. In doing so, the science teacher community will develop more expertise by connecting activities to the NGSS or respective state standards in productive ways.
26 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 References Bakker, R.T. (1986) The Dinosaur Heresies. New York: Kensington Publishing Corp. Borgerding, L. (2015). Dig into fossils! Science & Children, 52(9), 30-37. Breithaupt, B., & Scotchmoor, J. (2003). Interpreting the tracks. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Retrieved from http://www.ucmp.berkeley. edu/education/dynamic/session3/sess3_act2.htm Brown, P. L., & Abell, S. K. (2007). Examining the learning cycle. Science & Children, 44(5), 58-59. Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H. (2011). A ‘Coprolitic Vision’ for Earth Science Education. School Science & Mathematics, 111(6), 262-273. Clary, R., & Wandersee, J. (2008). Marquee fossils. The Science Teacher, 75(1), 44-50. Conner, T., Capps, D., Crawford, B., & Ross, R. (2013). Fossil finders. Science Scope, 36(7), 68-73. Cook, J.A., Edwards, S.V., Lacey, E.A., & Guralnick, R.P., (2014). Natural history collections as emerging resources for innovative education. Bioscience 64: 725–734. Feldmann, R. M. (1996). Fossils of Ohio. Columbus, OH: State of Ohio Division of Geological Survey. Gano, S., & Kinzler, R. (2011). Bringing the Museum into the classroom. Science 331 (6020): 1028–1029. Goldfisher, D., Crawford, B., Capps, D., & Ross, R. (2015). Fossils, inquiry, and the English language learner. Science Scope, 38(9), 78-82.
Meyer, X., & Crawford, B.A. (2011). Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: Merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education 6 (3): 525–47. Moran, S., McLaughlin, C., MacFadden, B., Jacobbe, E., & Poole, M. (2015). Fossil explorers. Science & Children, 53(4), 62-67. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC:NGAC and CCSSO. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Over, D. J. (1995). Determining dinosaur speed. Journal of Geological Education, 43, 207-211. Tarbuck, E., Lutgens, F., & Tasa, D. (2015). Earth Science, 14th ed, Prentice Hall Publishers, ISBN 13-978-0-321-92809-2 Wright, J. & Breithaupt, B. (2002). Walking in their footsteps and what they left us: Dinosaur tracks and traces in dinosaurs: the science behind the stories. American Geological Institute: Alexandria, Virginia.
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 27 SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS Activity 1 Fossil Sea-bottom Slab Objective The student will explore a rock containing fossils to develop insightful evidence-based thinking skills, to determine the type of habitat and community that the fossils represent. Safety Teacher must take precautions when working with large, heavy rocks. Obtain slabs that can be lifted by students. Warn students about weight of slabs and model how to carry them. Materials fossil slab – self collect or obtain from local fossil collectors or fossil club sheets of lined paper pencil ruler paper clip dissecting Scope hand lens Procedure. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9.
Students may work alone or in small groups. Each student or group will choose a fossil specimen. Student will examine the specimen using vision, touch and smell. Student will measure and record (diagram) the rock and any visible fossils. The students will describe the rock and fossil using the measurement data and with descriptive language. Student will look up the fossils in a regional fossil reference book and make inferences about the habitat during the time the fossil organisms lived. Student will need to creatively think about the fossil. What was the creature that fossilized, how did it live within its habitat and what happened to preserve the fossil? Reflection/Discussion: Students share what they discovered and hypothesized. What was the environment like when the fossil was formed? Have students describe the evidence supporting their ideas. After the primary reflection, the teacher might choose to explain that what the students had just done is what a paleontologist might do with a new fossil. Students should understand that anytime they study an item or event utilizing the scientific method, they become a scientist (problem identification, hypothesis, test, analyze, communicate, ask new question, etc.). Students should understand that scientists are not constrained to any age or educational level. The fossils will be turned in at the end of the class
28 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Assessment Rubric (to be adapted for educator’s use) Category
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Basic
Drawings/ Diagrams
Clear, accurate diagram, easy to understand, includes measurements and descriptive language. Diagrams are labeled neatly and accurately.
Diagram is included and is labeled neatly and accurately. Lacks some measurements, some descriptive language
Diagram is included and is labeled. Lacks measurements, little descriptive language
Expected diagram is missing OR is missing important labels. Lacks measurements, no descriptive language
Hypothesis
Hypothesized paleo-environment and community clearly based on evidence gathered from observations.
Hypothesized paleo-environment and community is reasonable based on some evidence gathered from observations.
Hypothesized paleo-environment and community, but not based on evidence gathered from observations.
No hypothesis has been stated.
Student Inferences
Presence of three or more reasonable inferences about fossil habitat based on observations or internet research.
Presence of at least two reasonable inferences about fossil habitat based on observations or internet research.
Presence of one reasonable inference about fossil habitat based on observations or internet research.
No reasonable inferences about fossil habitat based on observations or internet research.
Focused on task and used time well, communicated with other group members and contributed to all tasks.
Sometime not on task; communicated with other group members; contributed to most tasks.
Significant time not on task; lacked consistent communication with other group members; contributed to one task.
Nearly all time not on task; did not communicate with members; or did not contribute to tasks.
Participation
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 29 Activity 2a Exothermic Reactions Objective To use fossiliferous limestone (CaCO3) or limestone/dolomite-based fossil as a tool to observe exothermic reactions. Safety Personal safety equipment (goggles, apron, gloves) are required to be worn during the lab. Teacher should handle the Bunsen burner or other heat source rather than students. Review fire safety instructions before activity: have student review the stop-drop-and-roll technique, and make sure they are aware of the location of the fire extinguishers, fire blanket, safety shower, and emergency exits. Place final solution under fume hood and ventilate. Use the MSDS for any other chemicals used or created in the lab (Carbonic Acid) and for disposal considerations. Materials Fossiliferous limestone (CaCO3) or limestone/dolomite-based fossils Bunsen burner ring stand iron ring iron wire gauze igniter test tube test tube rack thermometer or probe system soda straw scale, weigh paper nail or paper clip mortar and pestle stirring rod Procedure 1. Obtain a small (approx. 1 cm3) sample of fossiliferous limestone (CaCO3) 2. Observe the physical properties of the sample including mass, color, and hardness. Record in Data Table A 3. Set up a ring stand, ring, and gauze place the sample on the gauze 4. Ignite the Bunsen burner 5. Heat the sample 6. Allow the sample to cool, and record observations of physical properties 7. Using the mortar and pestle, grind the sample 8. Fill test tube halfway with water, insert thermometer or probe and record temperature (Teacher-adjust volume to allow for reaction) 9. Add sample to water. Swirl test tube to mix sample and water. Record temperature change in 30-second intervals in Data Table B. Stir with stirring rod if necessary
30 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 10. After reaction is complete, use the straw to gently blow into the liquid in the test tube. Do not inhale through the straw (optional: teacher performs this task and students observe) 11. Record your observations. Data Table A Physical properties of sample; include color hardness, mass, etc.
Observation of sample before heating
Observation of sample after heating
Data Table B Time minutes
Temperature Co
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Assessment Notes: Student data and post lab questions can be presented in many forms. Student could create traditional lab reports, post their information to a blog or wiki, create a screencast or movie of their experience, or another creative manner that you would encourage. We use post-lab questions and ask students to record them in their science journals. Post Lab Questions (Can be added into a science journal) •
Using your observations and data collected, answer the following:
•
Graph your results- include labels and discussion of what the data shows
•
What happened as the sample was heated? Describe with supporting data.
•
How do you decide if there was an exothermic reaction?
•
What happened when you breathed into the solution? Develop a hypothesis about what is happening between your breath and the solution.
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 31 Activity 2B Exploring Chemical Reactions and Simulating Acid Rain Objective To use fossils as a tool to understand the impact of acid rain. This lab encourages students to look at common items in a new light. Students appreciate fossils. Acid rain is still an issue in developing and developed countries. The impact of acid rain on local and national ecologies can be damaging. This activity illustrates the effects acid rain may have on limestone based structures. Safety Personal safety equipment (goggles, apron, gloves) are required to be worn during the lab. Regarding acetic acid, make sure arms and legs are covered, hair is fastened, and students know to avoid any contact with skin, mouth, and eyes, and to be aware of eye station location. Place final solutions under fume hood and ventilate. Use the MSDS for Acetic Acid and any other chemicals used for the lab (example HCl .1M) for disposal considerations. Materials Fossiliferous limestone (CaCO3) or limestone/dolomite-based fossils sandstone quartz beakers parafilm or clear wrap wax pencil local water (various sources: rain, pond, tap, etc.) vinegar (acetic acid)- may include other liquids that range in pH from 2-5 graduated cylinder pHydrion paper or probe system wire brush scale, weigh paper thermometer graph paper or graphing program (ie. Excel etc.) Procedure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Obtain the materials needed Mass the fossil samples and record the data Add 50 ml of liquid to beaker Place the samples in labeled beakers Cover beaker with parafilm or clear wrap Record observations Daily record observations including massing of the sample
32 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Data Table (example) for rainwater Sample
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Change
A B C Observations
Post Lab Questions (can be added into a science journal) Using your observations and data collected, complete the following tasks and answer the questions: • Graph your results – include labels and discussion of what the data shows • What happened to the fossil sample? Why was there variation? What would happen if you left the sample in each liquid for more time? • Internet Research: Consider the rate of dissolving. What kind of rock dissolved the fastest? What types of fossils are typically found in this type of rock? • Internet Research: How does acid rain impact our understanding of the past and future? How would acid rain affect the types of organisms embedded in the limestone fossil? Assessment Rubric for Science Journals (to be adapted for educator’s use) Category Data
Journal Questions
Advanced
Proficient
Data tables and graph are complete and legible.
Data tables and graph are complete; a few parts not legible.
All analysis questions are answered with complete sentences, appropriate references to data/internet research are present, no grammar or spelling errors.
All analysis questions are answered; few incomplete sentences or missing references to data/internet research, 2 or fewer grammar or spelling errors.
Developing Data tables and graph are mostly complete or several parts not legible. A few analysis questions not answered; several incomplete sentences or only a few references to data/ internet research are present, 3-4 grammar or spelling errors.
Basic Data tables and graph are incomplete or not legible. Most analysis questions not answered; lacking complete sentences or no reference to data/internet research, 5+ grammar or spelling errors.
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 33 Activity 3 Measuring the Speed of a Dinosaur Based on Preserved Trackways (Adapted from authors (2003). Interpreting the Tracks. Retrieved from (website). Objective Basic to physical science standards is an introduction to speed, acceleration, motion and force. Dinosaur trackways can be useful in estimating the speed that animals traveled. Scientists do not always know what dinosaurs made specific tracks. However, the trackways can still give information as to how fast these animals were. Students will explore the relationships between foot length, leg length, stride length, and speed, through data collection, analysis, and basic calculations. Students will be encouraged to test and defend their mathematical models, and use the data to explore dinosaur trackways to utilize evidence to determine estimated dinosaur speed. Safety General science laboratory safety rules should be enforced. Students need to be reminded to run at half-speed and be aware of their surroundings to ensure that they do not injure themselves or other students. Materials meter stick and ruler graph paper calculator sand box or long paper (e.g., butcher paper) and tub for wetting feet with water or water-based paint paper or cloth towels for drying student track packet–one/group, containing copies of the following: • theropod track and reconstruction [PDF version] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session3/images_sess3/student1.pdf • aerial view of trackway and reconstruction of a single series of tracks [PDF version] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session3/images_sess3/student1. pdf • reconstruction of complete track site [PDF version] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ education/dynamic/session3/images_sess3/student3.pdf • geologic time scale and strata of the Mesozoic [PDF version] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session3/images_sess3/student4.pdf • reconstruction of theropod traversing ripple marks [PDF version] http://www.ucmp. berkeley.edu/education/dynamic/session3/images_sess3/teacher1.pdf • main groups of dinosaurs and their tracks [PDF version] http://www.ucmp.berkeley. edu/education/dynamic/session3/images_sess3/teacher2.pdf
34 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Procedure 1. Introduce dinosaur trackways. Introduce topic by showing images of dinosaur tracks, and ask students to explore, discuss and write about the tracks: What information can we determine from the tracks? (who was there, how many were there, what were they doing, speed, size of the foot, size of the legs, body size) Discuss the observable evidence – what can you observe from the tracks? Based on those observations, what can you infer about the tracks? Where are the tracks located? How can we know how old the tracks are? What animals lived, or did not live at that time? 2. Reflection/Discussion: How fast were the dinosaurs moving? If you only have a series of footprints, how can you determine speed? (Hint: If a dozen of you lined up outside, somewhere safe and flat, and you each took 100 steps, would you all cover the same distance? Why not? Leg length and stride are important. But without the leg and only the track, how can we figure out the leg length? Is there a relationship between foot length and leg length? 3. Students will measure their feet without shoes (all measurements in centimeters) and record in Data Table A 4. Students will measure the distance from their hips (where the femur inserts) to the floor and record in Data Table A 5. Students will determine ratio of the Foot Length (FL) to Hip Height (H) 6. If desired, collect all the students’ data, to create a class average. Expect an average of approximately 1:4, which is typical for bipedal animals. 7. Students will walk across a surface that will reveal their footprints. (e.g. in sand, stepping in water, or water based paint, and walking on dry ground or on rolled paper) 8. Students will measure and record the stride length, by measuring the distance from left foot to left foot, or right foot to right foot and record. 9. Repeat, but students will run, jog (trot), or walk quickly as safety allows. Students will determine speed ratio by dividing Stride Length (SL) by Hip Height (H) and record on Data Table A. Collect all data and compare students’ results. 10. Reflection/Discussion: Earlier, we noted a consistent ratio of Foot Length (FL) to Hip Height (H). We decided that Stride Length (SL) is also an important variable to consider. Of the three variables (foot length, hip height, and stride length), which do you think are the most important in determining speed? (Answer: Stride Length and Hip Height). Do you think the ratio of Stride Length to Hip Height will always be the same for an animal, or will it be different depending on whether the animal is walking or running? (Have students refer to Data Table A. Answer: It is different for walking and running). How do you think the information might change if looking at various bipedal or quadrupedal animals? 11. Discuss the following SL/H ratios that are used to determine an animal’s speed: The animal is walking: 2.9 12. Reflection/Discussion: We have discussed the relationships among Foot Length (FL), Hip Height (H), and Stride Length for humans. How can we use this information to
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 35
13. 14. 15. 16.
determine the dinosaurs’ relative speed when we only have the footprints and not the dinosaur’s leg? (Think/Pair/Share: Guide students to the plan of determining the dinosaur’s hip height from multiplying the foot length by 4, and then determining the relative speed from dividing the stride length by hip height). Each group of students will receive one or more images of dinosaur tracks. Students will measure the Foot Length (FL) and the Stride Length (SL) in Data Table B. Students will determine the Hip Height, using the 1:4 ratio and record in Data Table B Students will determine the relative speed of the dinosaur.
Post Activity Discussion Questions Students will evaluate their data and evidence, and will create at least one hypothesis concerning the type of animal that made the trackway, the speed it was traveling, and any other information that the students might have derived from observations of the trackway. Students will consider additional clues on the rock that add evidence about the environment, such as other traces/trails, mud cracks, raindrop impressions, ripple marks, and shells. Have students reflect on whether their mathematical model has limitations. Discuss how we used data immediately available to us to make claims about organisms that are no longer living. This provides us useful information about the past, but there are limitations because of the number of inferences used in our model. At this point, the teacher should have the students identify which data items were inferences. These limitations are always a part of the scientific process, and scientists continue to develop newer models that are reliable for many different situations. Discuss how different people can have different interpretations based on observations. Student trackways–Data Table A Foot Length (FL) cm
Hip Height (H) cm
Stride Length (SL) cm
FL:H ratio FL/H
Speed SL/H
Student 1 walk Student 2 walk Student 3 walk Student 4 walk Student 1 run Student 2 run Student 3 run Student 4 run
Describe the relationship between foot length and hip height. Refer to your data with your answer. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
36 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Do you think the ratio of Stride Length to Hip Height will always be the same for an animal, or will it be different depending on whether the animal is walking, trotting, or running? Refer to your data with your answer. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ How can this information be used to understand the dinosaurs’ relative speed? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Dinosaur trackways–Data Table B (Option: Have students construct this table) Foot Length (FL) cm
Stride Length (SL) cm
calculated Hip Height H FL/H = 1/4
Speed of animal SL/H
Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4
Are there any clues on the rock that add evidence about the animals’ environment, such as mud cracks, ripple marks, shells, traces/trails, etc.? The rock type itself will also provide information. Sandstone, limestone, mudstone, conglomerate, etc. all provide information about their origins/environment __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Create at least one hypothesis concerning: (a) the type of animal that made the trackway (b) the speed it was traveling (c) information derived from observations of the trackway. d) direction it was travelling __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
Capitalizing On Pre-existing Student Engagement With Fossils / 37 What factors might affect the preservation, sizes, and shapes of tracks and trackways? (Answer: paleo. environment, sediment type, sediment consistency, water content, etc.) Outline of Assessment Rubric (to be adapted for educator’s use) Category
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Basic
Data
Data tables are complete and legible.
Data tables are complete; a few parts not legible.
Data tables are mostly complete or several parts not legible.
Data tables are incomplete or not legible.
Analysis
All analysis questions are answered with complete sentences and three or more appropriate references to data.
All analysis questions are answered; lacking a few complete sentences and only two appropriate references to data.
One analysis question not answered; lacking a few or several complete sentences or only one appropriate reference to data.
Two or more analysis questions not answered; lacking several complete sentences or no reference to data.
Focused on task and used time well, communicated with other group members and contributed to all tasks.
Some time not on task; communicated with other group members; contributed to most tasks.
Significant not on task; lacked consistent communication with other group members; contributed to one task.
Nearly all time not on task; did not communicate with members; or did not contribute to tasks.
Participation
THE LANGUAGE OF PLAY AND GENDER-ROLE STEREOTYPES Dr. Tarsha E. Bluiett Samford University
Preschoolers construct culturally sanctioned messages regarding which gender-related behaviors are and are not acceptable (Scott, 2000). While play can bridge differences among children, it can also emphasize them. When opportunities to explore gender themes in an open-ended way are provided, children are afforded access to optimal play settings and learning. This article discusses the importance of providing play environments that welcome exploration and flexibility of gender roles through dramatic play.
Although gender is a biological trait, much gender-related behavior is learned (Bredekamp, 2014). Just as young children acquire an understanding of language through social interactions with parents, peers, and even the media, so, too, do pre-schoolers acquire gender knowledge. From very early ages, children process messages concerning expectations of girls and boys that influence their behavior. By preschool age, most children recognize their own gender identity. As they change play items or props such as clothes, gender identity and play items can impact play (Bredekamp, 2014). Different beliefs about learning lead to various perspectives on how children acquire gender knowledge. From the perspective of biological theory, (Christie et al., 2007), children are born with inherent gender-oriented roles which are innate and therefore, unchanging. This school of thought argues that girls are born with feminine, care-giving identities and are naturally suited to the roles of mothering and housekeeping, whereas boys are born with hunter and protector tendencies that lead to roles of dominance. For example, Bluiett (2009) observed females cuddling baby dolls and males often were observed engaging in
rough play with other males and many times acted in a callous manner with materials and objects. Biological theorists would anticipate that the play of young children, as well as the language they use during play, would be reflective of the static nature of inborn tendencies. A different perspective is held by social learning theorists (Christie et al., 2007) who believe that the acquisition of the concept of gender occurs as children observe the world around them. In this example from Bluiett’s (2009) study, as girls’ interacted while pretending to use cell phones, the language exhibited gender dominance: JG in loud sing-song voice: “I told you six times, not to call me!” RF: “Do you want to play that game?” CJ: “I want to play it. Boyfriend, I told you six times, not to call me!” JG: “Come on, CJ.” Teacher (SF): “Is that the way to talk to people on the phone?” JG: “It’s my boyfriend.” C J: “I told you six times not to call me!” 38
The Language Of Play And Gender-role Stereotypes / 39 JG: “I told you six times not to call me!” SF: “JG if you called your grandmother on the phone, how would you talk to your grandmother?” JG: “Hello. Goodbye! Boyfriend, I told you six times. I told you not to call me.” Through watching sex-typed behaviors and observing these behaviors reinforced through attitudes and examples in the world around them, children in this study began to imitate and eventually adopt gender specific behaviors. In contrast, cognitive developmental theorists (Christie et al., 2007) suggest that children participate in the process of gender role acquisition by constructing their own understanding of the gender models they see around them, rather than being uncontrollably shaped by biological or social forces. Children, for example, may say “Boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls.” This perspective acknowledges the active participation of children in making sense of the gendered messages they receive. All three perspectives offer insight into the acquisition of gender knowledge and the potential of dramatic play and oral language in minimizing sex-role stereotyping. Starting around age two and increasing throughout the pre-school years, children begin to demonstrate gender awareness and gender-role stereotypes (Christie et al., 2007). Accurately or inaccurately, pre-schoolers construct culturally sanctioned messages regarding which gender-related behaviors are and are not acceptable (Scott, 2000). Children develop deeply engrained beliefs about what boys and girls should and should not do (Scott, 2000). Often these beliefs are reflected in the oral language used, as well as in the toys and activities selected for play. For example,
JG: “I am the bride.” You are the flower girl. “Can you help me put on my dress?” MM: “Okay. Hey, can Zach be in the wedding?” JG: “No, this is for girls only.” MM: “But boys are in weddings, too!” The entrenchment of gender-specific expectations and behaviors was noted by Martin and Fabes (2001) in their observations of same-gender play groups. They found that children who play more frequently with same-sex peers tend to demonstrate more gender-typical behaviors than children who play with opposite sex peers. Girls, for example, who play most often with other girls, tend to be less active during play and boys who play primarily with other boys tend to be more aggressive during play. Same-gender play episodes revealed patterns of verbal exchange that reinforced gender schemes (Bluiett, 2009). Children, for example, were observed while engaging in pretend conversations using toy cell phones, and differences in oral language among genders were noted (Bluiett, 2009). One male began his conversation with another male by saying, “What are you doing, butt head?” The two continued to talk in a manner that mimicked the language of older teens. In contrast, a girl greeted another girl with a singsong, “Whatcha’ doin?” and the two engaged in a friendly exchange of language similar to mature adult women (Bluiett, 2009). Play situations have strong cognitive and social learning potential because they provide natural opportunities for children to use language in developing an understanding about their world (Perlmutter & Burrell, 1995). Not surprisingly, language is a significant factor in social play scenarios in which children take on the gender roles of others. In the following example a boy and a girl negotiate roles while interacting:
40 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 OG: “May I take your order?” MJ: “Yes, I would like coffee.” OG: “With or without sugar and cream?” MJ: “With sugar and cream, please.” In the context of play, language is used as children negotiate the scene and learn to cooperate with each other. It is the means by which children manipulate and extend the play scenario, as well as construct gender schemes (Guddemi, 2000). Attending to the language children use during play may offer hope for helping children develop more androgynous ways of thinking and interacting? Children have been shown to acquire gender knowledge and stereotypes at a young age, and teachers will have no easy task in erasing these deeply held ideas (Van Hoorn, 2003). Today’s teachers need a toolkit of effective strategies for intervening in the play of young children. Below are a set of recommendations to promote effective intervention strategies. 1. During play, help young children recognize the limitations of exclusive language and develop the skills of inclusive language. Because language plays an important role in the way in which gender is represented in our society, how a child uses language during play can reveal much about his or her notion of gender. The attentive teacher will listen for the use of exclusive or inclusive language as children playfully interact with each other. If a teacher hears a child say, “Only boys can play with trucks,” then he or she might gently counter with, “In our classroom boys and girls can play with trucks.” It could be that teachers, as well as students, need direct instruction in the use of appropriate examples of inclusive language versus stereotypic language. What does it mean to use gender appropriate language? “Let’s all line up,”
rather than “Line up guys.” In daily dialogue and conversation, young children learn to model questions as well as how to respond to them. Sociodramatic play provides children an opportunity to experiment with dialogue. 2. Use mixed gender groups during play to demonstrate the integration of behaviors traditionally thought to belong exclusively to one sex or the other. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003), suggest “Gender segregation in childhood almost certainly plays some role in the development of gendered verbal practice” (p. 25). When children are limited in their interaction with opposite sex peers, this is reflected in the language they use. Teachers can guard against this tendency by ensuring that both play and learning groups include boys and girls. Within the groups, teachers should make sure that girls and boys are provided equal access and time with toys that are typically reserved for the opposite sex. In addition, teachers should, on occasion, quietly intervene to reorganize groups that segregate themselves by sex. Cross-sex interaction among children that is guided by a sensitive teacher can help minimize the gender stereotypes children bring to school. Children begin to see that both sexes are capable of engaging in similar activities and accomplishing similar tasks. When children cooperate in groups to accomplish specific tasks, teachers should make sure that both girls and boys have an opportunity to lead. Both may take on a variety of roles within the group. 3. Provide opportunities to practice flexible gender roles in the classroom through dramatic play. Teachers can foster productive, literate play by designing classroom physical structures and play tools that are conducive to
The Language Of Play And Gender-role Stereotypes / 41 playful learning. Play episodes, such as the post office event in this study, were observed to allow children to take more defined roles in their play. It is important to consider how classrooms are structured so that spontaneous, literate language interactions can thrive. Scott and McCollum (2000) suggest that teachers should “eliminate the assignment of sex-stereotyped tasks and provide opportunities for all children to participate in all activities” (p. 186). Bluiett (2009) found it evident that both genders used language to “test” or even “fix” problems that occurred in play episodes or to keep the play episodes moving, so teachers should consider watching how children are able to use language to solve problems. For example, JG told MJ, “I do not want boys following me.” During instances of this nature, teachers often reminded children to “use their words” if emotions became too strong during play interaction. 4. During play, handle the management of inappropriate behaviors equitably. Teacher expectations about appropriate classroom behavior can either serve as a positive role model for gender equity or can inadvertently reinforce unhealthy stereotypes. Teachers should discourage the same inappropriate classroom behavior equally in boys and girls. Whether dealing with loud and boisterous behaviors or quiet, deferential behaviors, teachers should hold similar classroom expectations for both girls and boys. Inappropriate aggression should not be tolerated, and extreme passivity challenged equally for both girls and boys. “Teachers should provide all children with opportunities for engaging in and receiving praise for such behaviors as curiosity, cooperation, assertiveness, and helpfulness. “In this manner, the teacher demonstrates appropriate school behavior, not gender behavior” (Scott & McCollum, 2000, p. 177).
Growing up in a diverse society makes it imperative for children to develop gender equity schemes. Pre-school teachers have a responsibility to foster language development and social interactions of their young students. Genishi and Dyson (1984) reported that language specialists have become very aware of the social context of development including adult-child interaction and childchild interaction in home and out-of-home settings, pointing out that “when studying children’s language, we take into account both linguistic and social abilities” (p. 12). Social situations and interactions can have tremendous effects on the child’s language development and the kinds of language the child produces, such as non-gender stereotypes. If children can learn to use language in varied situations, adults can facilitate that versatility by providing opportunities for play and talk (and later reading and writing). Research on play and its relationship to social and language development has been conducted by many (Pellegrini, Vulkelich, & Neumon, 1998). Current research on early literacy outcomes shows a relationship between active socially engaging play and early language development. Social skills, oral language development, and sociodramatic play go hand in hand. Children who are provided with play opportunities in multi-age settings broaden their own understandings of the social world and of language diversity (Roskos, 1995). The growing emphasis on the teaching of early language and literacy skills in child care, pre-school, and other learning settings stems from important research linkage (Neuman & Roskos, 1993). Social play is a significant contributor to early language development and later literacy indicators (Christie, 1998; Morrow, 2001; International Reading Association, 2002; Strickland, 1997). A noted group of early literacy specialists (Christie, 1998; Morrow, 2001; Neuman & Roskos, 1993;
42 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Strickland & Strickland, 1997) documented the significant effect of hands-on socially engaging early literacy experiences on the literacy readiness and pre-reading skills of young children in pre-school and kindergarten settings. Although not always regarded as “reading” in a formal sense, acquisition of these print meaning associations is viewed as an important precursor to more skilled reading (Goodman, 1986).
References Bluiett, T. E. (2009). Sociodramatic play and the potentials of early language development of preschool children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Christie, J. F. (1998). Play as a medium for literacy development. In d. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond (pp. 50-55). New York: Garland. Christie, J., Enz, B,. & Vukelich, C. (2007). Teaching language and literacy: Preschool through the elementary grades (3rd ed.). New York:Allyn & Bacon. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461-490. Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (1984). Language assessment in the early years Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Goodman, Y. (1986). Developing the writing of preschoolers: children as active learners Education Digest, 18, 44-52. Guddemi, M. P. (2000). Recess: A time to learn, a time to grow. Boston: American Press. International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidenced based reading instruction? Newark: DE: International Reading Association. Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A.( 2001). The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 431-446. Morrow, L. (2001) Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Descriptive observations of adults’ facilitation of literacy in young children’s play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 77-97. Pellegrini, A., Vulkelich, C., & Neumon, S. (1998). Play: A context for exploring the functions, features, and meaning of writing with peers. Language Arts, 70, 386-392. Perlmutter, J. C., & Burrell, L. (1995). Learning through “play” as well as “work” in the primary grades. Young Children, 50(5), 14-21. Roskos, K. (1995). An inventory of literature behavior in the pretend play episodes of eight preschoolers. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(3), 39-52. Scott, E. S., & McCollum, H. (2000). Making it happen: gender equitable classrooms. National Society for Study of Education, 92, 174-190. Strickland, D. (1997). Language and literacy: The poetry connection. Language Arts, 74(3), 201-205. Van Hoorn, J. (2003). Play at the center of the curriculum (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION AND ACCESS AMONG MIDWEST COLLEGE STUDENTS David Ruggeri, Ph.D.
University of Missouri – Columbia
Michelle Teti, Ph.D.
University of Missouri – Columbia Objective To examine differences in marijuana consumption, access to marijuana, and perception of harm of consuming marijuana among college students enrolled in a small liberal arts college versus a large state university. Methods Currently enrolled college students at a liberal arts college or large state university were e-mailed a link to an online survey through their assigned university e-mail address during the Spring 2016 semester. Results 46.9% of state university students have consumed marijuana within the past 30 days, compared to 31.3% of liberal arts college students. 80.8% of state university students report marijuana use present at a party within the past 6 months, versus 49.6% for liberal art college students. Students at the liberal arts college perceived consuming marijuana weekly is more harmful than students at the state university, 16% to 8.2%. Conclusions Diverse policies must be created for small and large institutions as student consumption patterns and perception of harm differ. Keywords: Marijuana, college students, perception of harm
Introduction
Wolfson, 2014), and currently one-third of college students have reported consuming marijuana annually (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, & Miech, 2014; Mohler-Kuo, Lee, & Wechsler, 2003). A concerning trend is the increasing number of college students whom use marijuana on a regular basis. Marijuana use by college students has increased steadily, resulting in a 30 year high of daily marijuana consumption
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014). The share of young adults who have used cannabis has dramatically increased while the age of first use has declined (Hall, 2006). Nearly 30% of students entering college have use marijuana (C. K. Suerken, Reboussin, Sutfin, Wagoner, Spangler, & 43
44 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 by college students, with one out of every 20 college students consume marijuana on a daily basis (Johnston et al., 2014). This paper examines the differences in marijuana consumption as well as access to marijuana for college students enrolled in either a large state institution or a small liberal arts college. Although much has been published in the area of marijuana consumption among college students, a gap in the literature exists in scrutinizing behavioral differences between college students enrolled in either small or large institutions of higher learning. Given the differences in social life, culture, and resources at these different types of schools, it is important to understand and tailor any policies with these differences in mind. Peers are influencers of marijuana use (Barnett, Ott, Rogers, Loxley, Linkletter, & Clark, 2014) as approximately 93% of college marijuana use occurred in social settings where other college students were consuming marijuana (Buckner, Crosby, Silgado, Wonderlich, & Schmidt, 2012). Witnessing such behavior may increase the perception that marijuana smoking is a normal and expected behavior during college. Social norms have been shown to strongly predict more frequent marijuana use (Buckner, 2013). College students who are less likely to witness marijuana consumption within the college environment such as those who attend commuter colleges, where students traditionally drive to campus for their classes and then leave campus, are less likely to use marijuana (Bell, Wechsler, & Johnston, 1997). Marijuana consumption among college students is concerning as negative health outcomes have been associated with this behavior. Marijuana use is correlated with overall negative well-being (Fleming, Mason, Mazza, Abbott, & Catalano, 2008) and worse health outcomes than non-users (Arria, Caldeira, Bugbee, Vincent, & O’Grady, 2016). Smoking
marijuana has been correlated to lung cancer (Mehra, Moore, Crothers, Tetrault, & Fiellin, 2006), respiratory tract carcinoma (Taylor, 1988), increased the risk of head and neck cancer (Zhang, Morgenstern, Spitz, Tashkin, Yu, Marshall, Hsu, & Schantz, 1999), testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) (Daling, Doody, Sun, Trabert, Weiss, Chen, Biggs, Starr, Dey, & Schwartz, 2009), and an increased risk of prostate cancer (Sidney, Quesenberry, Friedman, & Tekawa, 1997). Marijuana use has also been associated with an increased risk of ovarian cyst cancer for underweight and normal-weight females (Holt, Cushing-Haugen, & Daling, 2005), as well as an increased risk of cervical cancer (Sidney et al., 1997). Individuals with a lifetime history of cannabis use are at increased risk of a psychosis outcome (Nordentoft & Hjorthoj, 2007; van Os, Bak, Hanssen, Bijl, deGraaf, & Verdoux, 2002). Marijuana use may trigger schizophrenia in persons who are vulnerable to the disorder, and marijuana may also be used to “self-medicate” schizophrenia symptoms (Hall, 2006). Heavy cannabis use at the age of 18 increased the risk of later schizophrenia six-fold (Arseneault, Cannon, Poulton, Murray, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002). Marijuana use during adolescence was linked to lower levels of life satisfaction and an increased risk of major depressive disorder (Georgiades & Boyle, 2007). Those whose marijuana use declined over time have better mental health outcomes than individuals whom maintained stable marijuana use consistent with their early 20s (Arria et al., 2016). Chronic marijuana users have also been shown to have impairments in attention, memory, and the ability to process complex information for months or even years after ceasing marijuana consumption (Ashton, 2001). Marijuana users have shown deficits in mathematical skills and verbal expression (Block & Ghoneim, 1993); as well as lower GPAs (Cynthia K. Suerken, Reboussin, Egan,
Marijuana Consumption And Access Among Midwest College Students / 45 Sutfin, Wagoner, Spangler, & Wolfson, 2016), issues with academic motivation (Phillips, Phillips, Lalonde, & Tormohlen, 2015), and lower levels of education completion (Georgiades & Boyle, 2007; Gruber, Pope, Hudson, & Yurgelun-Todd, 2003). Marijuana use has been associated with a higher risk of ending enrollment in college (Arria, Garnier-Dykstra, Caldeira, Vincent, Winick, & O’Grady, 2013). In addition to health risks marijuana users face potential legal risks. These range from smalls fines to felony convictions. State laws vary greatly concerning marijuana possession with monetary penalties and criminal classifications dependent on the quantity. Only 10 states have removed the felony classification for marijuana possession, meaning that marijuana possession of certain amounts can lead to a felony conviction even in states, which have legalized marijuana use. A felony conviction can have severe negative impacts on young adults, such as a loss of financial resources for education. Under the Drug Free Student Loan Act of 1998, students who are convicted of a drug offense are temporarily or permanently ineligible for student loans or grants (Blumenson & Nilsen, 2002). Penalties, both in monetary terms and/ or imprisonment, are inadequate deterrents primarily due to the fact that they remain mostly unknown by the offenders. Individuals are generally poor judges of the certainty and severity of criminal sanctions (Apel, 2013), with approximately one-third of households not knowing what the maximum penalty for marijuana possession is in their state (Pacula, Kilmer, Grossman, & Chaloupka, 2007). It should be noted that some studies have demonstrated the efficacy of medical marijuana for specific patients. Cannabis has been shown to reduce chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis (Hill, 2015). It has also been shown to improve pain, appetite, and nausea among
cancer patients (Waissengrin, Urban, Leshem, Garty, & Wolf, 2015), and to improve appetite (Woolridge et al., 2005) and caloric intake for HIV patients (Haney, Rabkin, Gunderson, & Foltin, 2005). However, recreational marijuana consumption among college students mostly falls outside of medicinal purposes. Method Approximately six weeks into the Spring 2016 semester currently enrolled college students were e-mailed a link to an online survey through their assigned university e-mail address. The survey remained active for three weeks, and e-mail reminders were not sent to students during this time. The overwhelming majority of participants completed the survey within 48 hours of receiving the e-mail. Partially completed surveys were not included in this analysis. E-mail addresses were obtained through the respective institution’s registrar or advising office. The e-mail at the state university was distributed to students in one of the largest schools on campus and the total on-campus traditional student body at the liberal arts college. Evening, satellite, and online students were not included in this analysis. The survey was distributed to students attending college in a state that does not allow for medical or recreational marijuana use, nor is marijuana decriminalized. The response rate was 9.3% at the state university and 19% at the liberal arts college. The electronic survey consisted of 31 multiple-choice questions concerning, but not limited to, students’ demographic characteristics, marijuana consumption, alcohol consumption, tobacco use, GPA, residency setting, awareness of criminal penalties for marijuana possession, and perception of harm of consuming marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco. No personally identifiable information was collected. Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana perception of harm questions were collected via a
46 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Lickert scale based on questions used in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Possible perception of harm responses were “not harmful, slightly harmful, moderately harmful, very harmful, or don’t know.” Participants were provided an option of 0-30 or “don’t know” for questions related to days alcohol, tobacco, and/or marijuana were consumed over the past 30 days. Institutional Review Board approval was received for this study and only students whom provided informed consent were given access to the survey. Participants did not receive any form of compensation for participating in the survey. SPSS version 24 was used in this analysis. Results The demographics for participants (N=309) at both the liberal arts college and the state university are similar (Table 1). Mean age at the liberal arts college was 22.94 versus 20.44 at the state university. Of the participants, 65% were female at the liberal arts college compared to 81% at the state university. White students comprised 88% percent of participants at both schools, with 67% living off campus at the liberal arts college compared to 75% at the state university respectively. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Students at the state university have more self-reported access to and consume marijuana at a higher rate than those attending a liberal arts college. As seen in Table 2, a greater number of state university students (46.9%) have consumed marijuana within the past 30 days, compared to those enrolled at the liberal arts college (31.3%). Of students at a state university, 47.5% indicate they can obtain marijuana in less than 30 minutes, compared to 40.6% at the liberal art college. State university students indicate that marijuana is significantly more prevalent than their senior year of high school (41.0%), compared to liberal art students (27.0%). For those attending parties within the past 6 months, 80.8% of state university students report marijuana use present at a party, versus 49.6% for liberal art college students. A greater number of state university students have purchased marijuana since beginning college (41.6%), versus those at a liberal arts college (27.9%). Differences in marijuana consumption exists based on where a student currently resides. For those residing in an on campus dorm or apartment just over 24% indicated that they have consumed marijuana within the past month compared to almost 41% of those who reside off campus. Of those residing on campus, 30.77% indicate that they can get marijuana in less than 30 minutes,
Liberal Arts College
State University
All Students
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Age
22.94
6.31
148
20.44
1.80
160
21.64
4.73
308
Gender (1=female)
0.65
0.48
145
0.81
0.39
159
0.73
0.44
304
Race (1=white)
0.88
0.33
142
0.88
0.33
160
0.88
0.33
302
Grade Level
2.91
1.09
147
2.66
1.11
161
2.78
1.10
308
GPA
3.34
0.46
144
3.45
0.42
155
3.40
0.44
299
Residence (1=lives off campus)
0.67
0.47
145
0.75
0.43
159
0.71
0.45
304
Marijuana Consumption And Access Among Midwest College Students / 47 versus 49.69% for those residing off campus. Students residing off campus at both the liberal arts college and the state university report similar access to marijuana in less than 30 minutes, 48.44% to 49.47% respectively. While 23.33% of those living on campus at the liberal arts college report having access to marijuana in less than 30 minutes compared to 40.91% of on campus residents at the state school. The perception of harm for consuming alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana also varies among college students at the differing institutions. Table 3 displays the self-reported level of risk in consuming these goods at least once a week as very harmful. Overall, 13.9% of college students indicated that consuming marijuana at least once a week is very harmful for one’s health, with 8.5% deemed weekly alcohol consumption as very harmful, and 62.3% listed weekly cigarette use as very harmful. Marijuana is perceived as the safest of these three drugs among students at the state university; with 8.2% of students at the state
university perceive that the risk of consuming marijuana at least once is very harmful, compared to 16% for those attended a liberal arts college. Of state university students, 11.9% reported that weekly alcohol consumption was very harmful, and 70.2% for weekly cigarette consumption. Students at the liberal arts college perceive weekly alcohol consumption as the safest as 8.9% reported weekly consumption was very harmful, followed by 16% marijuana, and 53.7% for cigarettes. Knowledge of state level marijuana laws and criminal sanctions also vary among college students (Table 4). Neither group of students is knowledgeable of the monetary fines for marijuana possession (personal use quantities), as 73.6% of liberal arts college students and 73.3% of state university students indicate that they do not know the penalties in their state. However, only 22.3% of liberal arts college students and 8.1% state university students are unaware if they state they are currently residing has legalized marijuana for medicinal and/or recreational purposes.
Table 2. Marijuana Use Among Midwest College Students Liberal Arts College
n
State University
n
All Students
n
Ever used marijuana
56.50%
147
65.20%
161
61.00%
308
Used marijuana within past 30 days
31.30%
147
46.90%
160
39.40%
307
Marijuana has been at a party past 6 months
49.60%
133
80.80%
146
65.90%
279
Marijuana use is significantly more prevalent than when a senior in High School
27.00%
122
41.00%
156
34.90%
278
Have you purchased marijuana while in college
27.90%
147
41.60%
161
35.10%
308
Can get access to marijuana within 30 minutes
40.60%
96
47.50%
118
44.40%
214
Marijuana is addictive
44.50%
128
53.80%
145
49.50%
273
Table 3. Perception that Consumption Weekly is Very Harmful
Liberal Arts College
n
State University
n
Alcohol
8.9%
Cigarettes
53.7%
Marijuana
16.0%
All Students
n
146
11.9%
147
70.2%
159
8.5%
305
113
62.3%
144
8.2%
308
159
13.9%
303
48 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 Table 4. Knowledge of Marijuana Penalties
Liberal Arts College
n
State University
n
All Students
n
Don’t know if marijuana is legal in state
22.30%
148
8.10%
161
14.90%
309
Don’t know state criminal classification for marijuana possession
49.30%
148
54.00%
161
51.80%
309
Don’t know monetary penalty for marijuana possession
73.60%
148
73.30%
161
73.50%
309
State university students are 1.94 times more likely to have consumed marijuana within the past 30 days than those enrolled at the liberal arts college. Additionally, college students in general are 20.76 more likely to have smoked marijuana within the past 30 days if their friends are current marijuana smokers; while students who live off campus are 2.57 times more likely to have smoked marijuana within the past 30 days than those who live on campus. Conclusions Deciding where to attend college is a major decision in one’s life. In addition to academics, lifelong friends and social networks are formed that can provide many positive benefits. Alternatively, some negative outcomes can develop based on which university one matriculates, as transitions to college is associated with an increase in marijuana use and usage varies by type of institution. Many factors appear to contribute to this increase in marijuana consumption such as relief from stress and tension (Bergamaschi, Queiroz, Chagas, de Oliveira, De Martinis, Kapczinski, Quevedo, Roesler, Schroder, Nardi, Martin-Santos, Hallak, Zuardi, & Crippa, 2011; Crippa, Derenusson, Ferrari, Wichert-Ana, Duran, Martin-Santos, Simoes, Bhattacharyya, Fusar-Poli, Atakan, Santos Filho, Freitas-Ferrari, McGuire, Zuardi, Busatto, & Hallak, 2011), peer acceptance, physical pain, or sex seeking (Beck, Caldeira, Vincent, O’Grady, Wish, & Arria, 2009); as
well as a decrease in adult supervision, greater amounts of personal freedom, increased availability and opportunity, as well as a sense of perceived anonymity within the college community (Stewart & Moreno, 2013). This paper has demonstrated that differences in the rate of marijuana consumption, access to marijuana, and perception of harm of consuming marijuana exist among college students whom enrolled in either a liberal arts college a large state university. Strong and lasting social networks are formed during ones college years. Affiliation is one of the strongest predictors of happiness by undergraduate college students (Tkach & Lyubomirsky, 2006), and social interactions and openness to experiences has been shown to have positive effects on psychological well-being (McCrae & Jr., 1991). However, some of these newly developed social networks may greatly contribute to the chance of one partaking in risky behaviors. Participating in marijuana use with other students may increase their level of social relations (Allen & Holder, 2014) and exposure to new experiences. Students with risky networks are six times more likely to consume marijuana on a weekly basis (Mason, Zaharakis, & Benotsch, 2014), and students whose friends are current marijuana users are more than 20 times more likely to have smoked marijuana within the past 30 days. The vast size of the student population at large state institutions also appears to influence the perception of harm of marijuana
Marijuana Consumption And Access Among Midwest College Students / 49 consumption. Those attending the state university perceive that weekly marijuana consumption is less harmful than both weekly alcohol and tobacco consumption. This may be due to the increased exposure to those consuming marijuana, as more than 80% of state university students have witnessed marijuana use at a recent party compared to only 50% at the liberal arts college. Students at both schools indicate an increase in marijuana prevalence from high school, with 27% of liberal arts college students and 41% at the state institution report marijuana use among their peers is significantly more. This increased exposure to marijuana use may normalize this behavior. As marijuana consumption is more accepted there may be an increased tendency to reject the notion that many like-minded peers would purposefully engage in harmful behavior. The normalization of marijuana consumption may be reinforced by the ease of access. Just over 40% of liberal arts college students and 47% of state university students can get access to marijuana within 30 minutes. This short amount of time to access marijuana reduces the barriers to use and may even encourage consumption, as marijuana is increasingly thought as any other good available on and around college campuses. Students enrolled at a state institution are also more likely to have purchased marijuana compared to students at a liberal arts college, 41.6% versus 27.9%. This shows greater intent to participate in an illegal activity and may be due to the commonplace nature of marijuana smoking. Additionally, residing off campus greatly influences one’s chances of consuming marijuana within the past 30 days. Those who live off campus are almost 3-fold more likely to be a current marijuana smoker. This is likely due to the lack of supervision and the decreased
likelihood that persons who reside in places where the social bonds are tighter, such as a fraternity or sorority house, will be reported to authorities for illegal behavior. University policies that require students to reside on campus past their freshman year may aid in decreasing marijuana consumption. Limitations This study has several limitations that should be noted. First, only two Midwestern institutions participated in the study. The participation of more, as well as more diverse, institutions would increase the generalizability of the results. Future studies should also include university’s that reside within states with differing laws concerning marijuana. Second, the majority of participants (73%) in this study were female. This does not accurately reflect the current level of female college enrollment which is 56.2% (The National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). A sample which better reflects the current enrollment levels of males and females, may provide results that are more precise. Future research is planned which will utilize a larger number of participating institutions. These limitations notwithstanding, this paper highlights differing consumption patterns among college students at dissimilar institutions, and has important implications for practice. Policies that require students to reside on campus beyond their freshman year will be more effective in reducing marijuana consumption at large state institutions than at small liberal arts colleges. In addition, large state institutions should develop new and creative ways to educate students on the potential health risks of consuming marijuana, while policies that inform students of the addictive nature of marijuana would likely have a greater impact at small liberal arts colleges.
50 / Education Vol. 139 No. 1 References Allen, J., & Holder, M. D. (2014). Marijuana Use and Well-Being in University Students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 301-321. doi:10.1007/ s10902-013-9423-1 Apel, R. (2013). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 35. Arria, A. M., Caldeira, K. M., Bugbee, B. A., Vincent, K. B., & O’Grady, K. E. (2016). Marijuana use trajectories during college predict health outcomes nine years post-matriculation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 159, 158-165. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. drugalcdep.2015.12.009 Arria, A. M., Garnier-Dykstra, L. M., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., Winick, E. R., & O’Grady, K. E. (2013). Drug Use Patterns and Continuous Enrollment in College:Results From a Longitudinal Study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(1), 7183. doi:doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.71 Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Poulton, R., Murray, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: Longitudinal prospective study. British Medical Journal, 325, 2. Ashton, C. H. (2001). Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: A brief review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 6. Barnett, N. P., Ott, M. Q., Rogers, M. L., Loxley, M., Linkletter, C., & Clark, M. A. (2014). Peer associations for substance use and exercise in a college student social network. Health Psychology, 33(10), 11341142. doi:10.1037/a0034687 Beck, K. H., Caldeira, K. M., Vincent, K. B., O’Grady, K. E., Wish, E. D., & Arria, A. M. (2009). The social context of cannabis use: relationship to cannabis use disorders and depressive symptoms among college students. Addict Behav, 34(9), 764-768. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.05.001 Bell, R., Wechsler, H., & Johnston, L. D. (1997). Correlates of college student marijuana use: Results of a US National Survey. Addiction, 92(5), 571-581. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb02914.x Bergamaschi, M. M., Queiroz, R. H. C., Chagas, M. H. N., de Oliveira, D. C. G., De Martinis, B. S., Kapczinski, F., . . . Crippa, J. A. S. (2011). Cannabidiol Reduces the Anxiety Induced by Simulated Public Speaking in Treatment-Naive Social Phobia Patients. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(6), 1219-1226. Block, R. I., & Ghoneim, M. M. (1993). Effects of chronic marijuana use on human cognition. Psychopharmacology, 110(1), 219-228. doi:10.1007/bf02246977
Blumenson, E., & Nilsen, E. S. (2002). How to construct an underclass, or how the war on drugs became a war on education. Suffolk University Law School Faculty Publications, Paper 1. Buckner, J. D. (2013). College Cannabis Use: The Unique Roles of Social Norms, Motives, and Expectancies. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(5), 720726. doi:doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.720 Buckner, J. D., Crosby, R. D., Silgado, J., Wonderlich, S. A., & Schmidt, N. B. (2012). Immediate antecedents of marijuana use: An analysis from ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43(1), 647-655. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.09.010 Crippa, J. A., Derenusson, G. N., Ferrari, T. B., WichertAna, L., Duran, F. L., Martin-Santos, R., . . . Hallak, J. E. (2011). Neural basis of anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in generalized social anxiety disorder: a preliminary report. J Psychopharmacol, 25(1), 121-130. doi:10.1177/0269881110379283 Daling, J. R., Doody, D. R., Sun, X., Trabert, B. L., Weiss, N. S., Chen, C., . . . Schwartz, S. M. (2009). Association of marijuana use and the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer, 115(6), 9. Fleming, C. B., Mason, W. A., Mazza, J. J., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2008). Latent growth modeling of the relationship between depressive symptoms and substance use during adolescence. Psychol Addict Behav, 22(2), 186-197. doi:10.1037/0893-164x.22.2.186 Georgiades, K., & Boyle, M. H. (2007). Adolescent tobacco and cannabis use: Young adult outcomes from the Ontario Child Health Study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(7), 8. Gruber, A. J., Pope, H. G., Hudson, J. I., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2003). Attributes of long-term heavy cannabis users: a case–control study. Psychological Medicine, 33(8), 1415-1422. doi:10.1017/S0033291703008560 Hall, W. (2006). The mental health risks of adolescent cannabis use. PLoS Medicine, 3(2), 4. Holt, V. L., Cushing-Haugen, K. L., & Daling, J. R. (2005). Risk of functional ovarian cyst: Effects of smoking marijuana use according to body mass index. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161(6), 6. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013; Volume 2, College Students and Adults Ages 19–55. The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
Marijuana Consumption And Access Among Midwest College Students / 51 Mason, M. J., Zaharakis, N., & Benotsch, E. G. (2014). Social Networks, Substance Use, and Mental Health in College Students. Journal of American College Health, 62(7), 470-477. doi:10.1080/07448481.201 4.923428 McCrae, R. R., & Jr., P. T. C. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The Full Five-Factor Model and Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 6. Mehra, R., Moore, B. A., Crothers, K., Tetrault, J., & Fiellin, D. (2006). The association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(13), 9. Mohler-Kuo, M., Lee, J. E., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Trends in Marijuana and Other Illicit Drug Use Among College Students: Results From 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study Surveys: 1993–2001. Journal of American College Health, 52(1), 17-24. doi:10.1080/07448480309595719 Nordentoft, M., & Hjorthoj, C. (2007). Cannabis use and risk of psychosis in later life. The Lancet, 370(9584), 2. Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Grossman, M., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2007). Do penalties facing marijuana users influence marijuana prices? Paper presented at the International Health Economics Association 5th World Congress, Barcelona, Spain. Phillips, K. T., Phillips, M. M., Lalonde, T. L., & Tormohlen, K. N. (2015). Marijuana use, craving, and academic motivation and performance among college students: An in-the-moment study. Addictive Behaviors, 47, 42-47. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. addbeh.2015.03.020 Sidney, S., Quesenberry, C. P. J., Friedman, G. D., & Tekawa, I. S. (1997). Marijuana use and cancer incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control, 8(5), 7. Stewart, M. W., & Moreno, M. A. (2013). Changes in Attitudes, Intentions, and Behaviors toward Tobacco and Marijuana during U.S. Students’ First Year of College. Tobacco Use Insights, 6, 7-16. doi:10.4137/ TUI.S11325
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4863. Suerken, C. K., Reboussin, B. A., Egan, K. L., Sutfin, E. L., Wagoner, K. G., Spangler, J., & Wolfson, M. (2016). Marijuana use trajectories and academic outcomes among college students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 162, 137-145. doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.041 Suerken, C. K., Reboussin, B. A., Sutfin, E. L., Wagoner, K. G., Spangler, J., & Wolfson, M. (2014). Prevalence of marijuana use at college entry and risk factors for initiation during freshman year. Addict Behav, 39(1), 302-307. Taylor, F. M. (1988). Marijuana as a potential respiratory tract carcinogen: A retrospective analysis of a community hospital population. Southern Medical Journal, 81(10), 4. The National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution and race/ethnicity of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2014. Tkach, C., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How Do People Pursue Happiness?: Relating Personality, Happiness-Increasing Strategies, and Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(2), 183-225. doi:10.1007/ s10902-005-4754-1 van Os, J., Bak, M., Hanssen, M., Bijl, R. V., deGraaf, R., & Verdoux, H. (2002). Cannabis use and psychosis: A longitudinal population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 156(4), 9. Zhang, Z.-F., Morgenstern, H., Spitz, M. R., Tashkin, D. P., Yu, G.-P., Marshall, J. R., . . . Schantz, S. P. (1999). Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 8(12), 9.
