Reports of increased juvenile crime rates abound, and arrest rates among adolescents are also growing. Tragically, adolescents with learning disabilities account for a sizable portion of those disturbing statistics. Because many adolescents, including those with learning disabilities, do not anticipate future consequences of their misconduct, this descriptive study proactively sought to teach mainstreamed classrooms of sixth graders about Oregon law to counteract this lack of knowledge. Students' learning in the areas of criminal and civil law was the focus. Emphasis was on wanting to know more than just what laws and statutes students could memorize; rather, interest was on the students' ability to perform legal problem solving. The generalized research question was: Will the performance of general education, Title I, talented and gifted, and learning-disabled sixth grade students assessed by multiple choice tasks and by extended essay tasks differ on the concepts of law, juvenile law, civil law, and criminal law? At the end of approximately three weeks, students were given a facts test along with several problem-solving tasks. Results showed that the four groups differed significantly on declarative knowledge tasks, but not on procedural and conditional knowledge tasks. These outcomes are congruent with prior research findings and further support the collaborative conceptual teaching model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Birenbaum, M., & Tatsuoka, K.K. (1987). Open-ended versus multiple-choice response formats-it does make a difference for diagnostic purposes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 285-395.
2.
Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437-474.
3.
Brier, N. (1989). The relationship between learning disability and delinquency: A review and reappraisal. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(9), 546-553.
4.
Brier, N. (1994). Targeted treatment for adjudicated youth with learning disabilities: Effects on recidivism. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(4), 215-225.
Cornwall, A., & Bawden, H.N. (1992). Reading disabilities and aggression: A critical review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(5), 281-288.
7.
Crabtree, C., Nash, G.B., Gagnon, P., & Waugh, S. (1992). Lessons from history. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
8.
Curtis, C.K. (1991). Social studies for students at risk and with disabilities . In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 157-174). New York, NY: Macmillan.
9.
Davis, R. (1995, Sept. 8). Crime study details 'young and ruthless.'USA Today, p. 3A.
10.
Dodge, K.A. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior . Child Development, 51(1), 162-170.
11.
Ford, J., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1991). Ecological validity revisited: A 10 year comparison of two journals. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16(2), 104-107.
12.
Ford, M.E. (1982). Social cognition and social competence in adolescence . Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 323-340.
13.
Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39(3), 193-202.
14.
Frymier, J. (1992). Growing up is risky business and schools are not to blame. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
15.
Grande, C.G. (1988). Delinquency: The learning disabled student's reaction to academic school failure. Adolescence, 23(89), 581-591.
16.
Jentzsch, C., & Tindal, G. (1991). Analytic scoring of writing (Training Module No. 8). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program.
17.
Juvenile arrest rate may double. (1995, September 8). The Register-Guard, p. 5A.
18.
Keilitz, I., & Dunivant, N. (1986). The relationship between learning disability and juvenile delinquency: Current state of knowledge. Remedial and Special Education, 7(3), 18-26.
19.
Larson, K.A. (1988). A research review and alternative hypothesis explaining the link between learning disability and delinquency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(6), 357-363, 369.
20.
Martinez, M.E. (1991). A comparison of multiple-choice and constructed figural response items. Journal of Educational Measurement , 28(2), 131-145.
21.
McDougall, D.M. (1993). What did I do? A scenario-based program to assist specific learning disabled adolescents in understanding legal issues. Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 042).
22.
Meltzer, L.J., Levine, M.D., Kamiski, W., Palfrey, J.S., & Clarke, S. (1984). An analysis of the learning styles of adolescent delinquents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(10), 600-608.
23.
Meltzer, L.J., Roditi, B.N., & Fenton, T. (1986). Cognitive and learning profiles of delinquent and learning-disabled adolescents. Adolescence, 21(83), 581-591.
24.
Messick, S. (1989a). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
25.
Messick, S. (1989b). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
26.
Messick, S. (1993). Trait equivalence as construct validity of score interpretation across multiple methods of measurement. In R.E. Bennett & W.C. Ward (Eds.) Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement (pp. 61-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validity of performance assessments. Educational Researcher , 23(2), 13-23.
28.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement ( 1991). Youth indicators-1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
29.
Pearl, R., & Bryan, T. (1994). Getting caught in misconduct: Conceptions of adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(3), 193-197.
30.
Pearl, R., Bryan, T., & Herzog, A. (1990). Resisting or acquiescing to peer pressure to engage in misconduct: Adolescents' expectations of probable consequences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19(1), 43-55.
31.
Perlmutter, B.F. (1987). Delinquency and learning disabilities: Evidence for compensatory behaviors and adaptation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(2), 89-95.
32.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
33.
Pugach, M.C., & Warger, C.L. (1993). Curriculum considerations. In J.I. Goodlad & T.C. Lovitt (Eds.) Integrating general and special education (pp. 125-148). New York, NY: Macmillan.
34.
Ryan, K. (1993). Mining the values in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 16-18.
35.
Small, S.A., Eastman, G., & Cornelius, S. (1988). Adolescent autonomy and parental stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(5), 377-391.
36.
Tindal, G., Nolet, V.W., & Blake, G. (1992). Focus on teaching and learning in content classes (Training Module No. 3). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Research, Consultation, and Teaching Program.
37.
Wainer, H., Wang, X., & Thissen, D. (1994). How well can we compare scores on test forms that are constructed by examinees' choice? Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 183-199.
38.
Waldie, K., & Spreen, O. (1993). The relationship between learning disabilities and persisting delinquency. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 26(6), 417-423.
39.
Ward, W.C., Frederiksen, N., & Carlson, S.B. (1980). Construct validity of free-response and machine-scorable forms of a test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17(1), 11-29.
40.
Wolford, B.I. (1987). Maneuvering through the maze: The learning handicapped offender in the justice system. The Pointer, 31(3), 56-59.
41.
Woodward, J., & Noell, J. (1992). Science instruction at the secondary level: Implications for students with learning disabilities. In D. Camine & E.J. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher order thinking: Designing curriculum for mainstreamed students (pp. 39-58). Austin, TX: ProEd .
42.
Zigmond, N. (1993). Rethinking secondary school programs for students with learning disabilities. In E. L. Meyen , G.A. Vergason, & R.J. Whelan (Eds.). Challenges facing special education (pp. 105-140). Denver, CO: Love.
