Review of literature on bullying
kih1125
review_of_literature_instructions.docxApril 2015
d. If you do not use PERRLA, you’d better buy a copy of the APA’s Publication Manual. To do otherwise is almost certain to result in disaster in citations and the reference list. Since I’m providing a text free of charge, I have no sympathy for anyone who tries to scrimp by and save money by not buying PERRLA or the APA Manual.
REVIEWING RELATED LITERATURE
Objective: Following completion of this class, the student will understand the purpose and process of writing a literature review of literature.
Preceding reviewing the related literature, one hopefully has decided upon the research topic, perhaps alone, but often from brainstorming with other friends or professionals. Often, however, early into the library research one decides that the original topic is too broad or too well-researched or for some other reason the direction changes with a move to a spin-off idea or to a completely new focus of research. This is a trial-and-error period, this time of making a final decision regarding your research through perusal of related work that has already been done.
This can be an exciting time and it can be an aggravating time. It is exciting to some because you are learning more and more about something you’re interested in. It can also be exciting because you accidentally run into interesting information about things that aren’t even remotely related to your topic. This latter happening can lead to the frustration I mentioned. You can spend hours of searching, find lots of good stuff and then find that most of what you found might have been interesting but wasn’t related to your topic and so you have to go at it again tomorrow…aggravating! It’s also an aggravation to have to work so hard on something that is not the least interesting to you. That’s the reason that it is so critical to choose a topic related to something you enjoy learning about.
It is very important to develop an outline of the direction you expect your research to take and to modify that outline as you uncover information. The outline sets the stage for your eventual writing but it also organizes your thinking and your library work. Your outline will be a living document, changing and growing as you collect information. It is true that good organization can save untold hours of time and that in itself is the best reason for outlining your thoughts.
As you uncover information, you’ll find that certain authors are found more frequently. That’s a key to success. They are obviously very involved with the topic and will have greater depth of understanding. They’ve gone through a lot of trial and error that you can take advantage of. Use their names as key words in your search. Read everything they’ve done related to the topic. Another aid is to use the bibliography in their most recent work to direct you to other related studies. This is a strategy called bibliographic mining. This is also a good way to go to the origin of the concept, the classic studies that established the foundation.
Be very discerning and cautious about Internet information. Anyone can post anything on the Web and you must look at the source very critically. Is it posted by someone whose works are in the bibliographies you’ve been viewing? If not, beware. An example is Wikipedia. Wiki might be useful for a quick look at something but it should NEVER be cited as a scholarly source. Anyone, including you or I, can modify a Wikipedia site. Now that sounds dangerous, given how little I know about some things. Whether I know anything or not, I can put what I believe on a Wikipedia site. Another thing to look for, is it a university site? That’s positive but not absolute insurance of validity. Government-sponsored sites are frequently good. The bottom line here is that Internet information can be good if you screen it carefully but your best bet is the Magale Library and its books, journals, and interlibrary loan service. Use the Internet, but be very critical of the sites. Make sure it is a valid website before you use it.
In writing your review of related literature you should progress from the general to the specific. That is, first tell about the fundamental foundations related to your topic. You might have to define the field, the general area of inquiry, etc. and then you move into more and more specific findings. Follow your well-organized outline as you write and please be sure to use multiple side headings to assist your reader in following your thinking. One common fault is to write about each study sequentially. Do not do this! Write from an outline, organizing by topics and citing those studies related to that particular part of the outline/topic as appropriate. This concept is very important and should be considered in any writing that you do. It should go without saying that you must be very careful to give credit where credit is due. Citations are an indication of strength, showing that you have indeed reviewed others’ works. Failure to cite something you write is dishonest or sloppy, either of which is inexcusable plagiarism. Avoid plagiarism like the plague. It has been the basis of students being suspended from graduate studies in cases where it was known to be intentional or was extensive. Be meticulous in your note-taking and citations of others’ previous work!
Your completed review of related literature should illustrate mastery of your chosen topic. It should be based mostly on articles from professional journals supplemented perhaps by a special book citation and maybe an online resource or two. It should progress from the general to the specific and should finish with a summarizing paragraph. Finally, it should prepare you well to organize your thinking in planning your own research. You’ll know very well what others have found, you can modify their approaches in designing your study, and you can take advantage of their shortcomings, if any. This review of literature is a powerful tool in guiding your research. If it is thorough and well done, you’re well on your way to success. If not, you’re sure to run into problems.
Appendix B
Sample Review of Related Literature
Mainstreaming: A Review of Related Literature
Mollee Thomason
Southern Arkansas University
In today’s world of education, students with disabilities from mild and moderate to severe are frequently being educated in the same classroom with their nondisabled peers as was the case prior to the emergence of special education. In the recent past, students with disabilities were just warehoused and kept separated from their nondisabled peers. This review will commence with historical aspects of special education and move on to include detailed aspects of the attitudes of teachers and of students towards educating students with special needs.
Special Education Beginnings
Specialized institutions were set up at the beginning of the 20th century by voluntary agencies to take in ‘idiot’ children with a learning disability that were not deemed educable. The aim of these agencies was to train these children to become productive and valuable members of society. At this time in society, these children were usually accommodated in classrooms separate from their peers and generally not entitled to an education (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). They noted that this changed in 1978 with the publication of the Warnock report. This report argued “that children with special educational needs, including those with a learning disability, should, where possible, be educated in mainstream classrooms”. (p. 12) Special education in the mainstreaming movement operates by what is termed the least restrictive environment. The least restricted environment is one in which all services are provided in the general education classroom. The general education teacher is provided support and consultation services from the special education department in order to give the student the necessary support to function fully in the general education classroom. This placement option serves as a bridge between regular education and special education and is critical to the success of the mainstreamed school (Junkala & Mooney, 1986). Those people with disabilities should, whenever possible have a lifestyle that closely resembles the lifestyles of the general population (Rae & McKenzie, 2010).
In relation to educating children with special educational needs, the term ‘integration’ has been replaced by the term ‘inclusion.’ Mainstream schooling has been restructured to accommodate the needs of all children regardless of their abilities or disabilities (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). Mainstream schooling or inclusive education is closely associated with an international effort to achieve and sustain an agenda of Education for All (Brady & Opertti, 2011). In recent years, students with disabilities are being educated side by side with their nondisabled peers with increasing frequency. These increases include both students with mild disabilities and students with severe disabilities (Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007). Research suggests that some teachers feel they haven’t received sufficient training to meet the special needs for this group of children. Not all teachers hold a positive attitude towards inclusion (Rae & McKenzie, 2010).
Teachers’ Attitudes
Attitudes stem from multiple factors. These factors include personal experience, observation of others, and emotional processes. Attitudes have a direct impact on behavior (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). Rae and McKenzie define attitude as a “predisposition to think or act in a particular way in response to a specific stimulus” (2010, p. 14). Implementation of controversial policies, such as mainstreaming of students with disabilities both mild and severe, can be facilitated or hindered by the attitudes of the professionals involved (Rae & McKenzie, 2010). Historically, teachers of general education have not had a favorable reaction to the increased number of students with disabilities mainstreamed into their general education classrooms. Early studies showed the apprehension of teachers about the quality of academic work produced by children with disabilities in these mainstream classes. These early studies also showed teacher concerns about their own levels of preparedness for the mainstreaming of these students with disabilities and the amount of one-on-one time that might be required for each individual disabled student (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). More recent studies have shown that, “In general, teachers have expressed positive feelings toward the general concept of inclusion, but have been less optimistic about the degree to which they are adequately prepared to successfully implement inclusion” (Cook et al., 2007, p. 230). Teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming depend highly “on the degree of intensity of mainstreaming and the severity level” (Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001, p. 752). As the inclusive movement gains momentum in our society, teachers’ attitudes tend to become progressively more positive (Jones, Thorn, Chow, & Wild, 2002). Increased training and knowledge in mainstreaming relate to the formation of more positive attitudes. Teachers with a more extensive training in mainstreaming are known to use a more differentiated instruction more frequently than teachers with no or very little training (Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001).
Some teachers show a resistance to any contact with disabled students. This resistance leads to the perception that with the inclusion of these students with disabilities instructional time can be seriously strained (Johnson, 1987). Educators hold four attitudes toward their students. These attitudes are attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection. Based on these attitudes, a series of observational studies established that teacher/student interactions consistently differ (Cook et al., 2007).
Students’ Attitudes
The success of the inclusive movement or mainstream schooling is largely dependent on the attitudes of students, parents, teachers and administrators. In the past, research pertaining to this inclusive movement involved only the attitudes of teachers. To be successful, the attitudes of the students cannot be ignored. Whether or not the special needs student can learn to socialize with the regular education students in the general education classroom must be considered. Whether or not the regular education student will be receptive of students with special needs in the general education classroom setting is important as well. In general, attitudes of special needs students are positive, as well as the attitudes of regular education students. It is said that special needs students receive over 300 percent more social interaction in an inclusive mainstream classroom setting than in a segregated classroom. This social participation is likely the reason for the increased improvement in the academic performance of the special needs student in the inclusive mainstream classroom setting compared to the same special needs student in a segregated classroom setting. This is complemented by the fact that peer tutoring tends to reinforce and significantly boost performance levels of special needs students. These relationships are so important in inclusive classrooms. In order for the inclusive movement or mainstream schooling to be successful, it is imperative for these students, both special needs and regular education to have positive attitudes. Data that pertains to student attitudes seems to indicate a formation of positive social relationships between special needs students, even those with severe disabilities, in the inclusive classroom setting (Jones et al., 2002).
Special needs students have a positive attitude towards a student-centered approach to inclusion. Jones et al. (2002) found that the attitudes of special needs students were significantly more positive than their parents and regular education students. This would indicate that special needs students are “more tuned in to the concept of inclusion than both their parents and the regular classroom students” (Jones et al., 2002, p. 631). Students with multiple disabilities, including deaf-blindness are increasingly being educated in an inclusive mainstream classroom with their nondisabled peers. Research has shown that students with multiple disabilities depend more on their teachers for communication. Also, these students are not very likely to initiate any type of interaction with their nondisabled peers. For students with disabilities to become part of the classroom and school community, all students in that school community, regardless of any weaknesses or their strengths, should be included, even those with multiple disabilities and those with deaf-blindness (Correa-Torres, 2008). Students with multiple disabilities such as those with deaf-blindness have a greater chance to learn socialization skills within the inclusive mainstreamed classroom setting.
To enable students with special needs and physical disabilities to participate more fully and richly in various activities and inclusive classrooms, some schools have adopted the use of assistive technology devices (ATD). These devices can be high tech or low tech. Research has shown that assistive technology devices are not being used by students in a postsecondary education. Students’ feel the devices attract unwanted attention from their peers and therefore threaten their sense of fitting in. Hemmingsson, Lidstrom and Nygard (2009) argued that “A better understanding of the students’ views on and experiences of barriers to and facilitators of ATD use in school will help health professionals to suggest optimal ATDs for each child and situation”. (p. 464). They found that students said they wanted to use ATD’s, but when actually provided with the ATD’s, the students would not use them. The study also showed that students were reluctant to use ATD’s provided to improve their performance later in life. Students were more prone to use the ATD’s when their function was increased. In this same study, observations showed that students’ tried to avoid ATD’s that made them feel different in any way or that might complicate or threaten any social interaction with their peers. Using assistive technology or not, in an inclusive mainstream classroom or not, students with disabilities want to be accepted by their peers socially. Regular education students want the same thing. All students want to be accepted socially by their peers.
Summary
There is a wide range of material available about teacher attitudes of inclusive mainstreaming. The material about student attitudes is less abundant. Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming did not start out in a favorable way. With training in strategies teaching students with special needs in an inclusive mainstream setting, teacher attitudes have been more positive. Most students with disabilities have a positive attitude about mainstreaming. Students with disabilities are just like any other student in that they want to be accepted socially by their peers and feel a part of the school community. These are students with mild disabilities to students with multiple disabilities such as deaf-blindness. Some of these students use assistive technology and some do not. The success of any program depends on the attitudes of those involved. The program of mainstreaming can only be as good as the attitudes of the students and teachers and others involved.
References
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995, February). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94, 120.
Brady, J., & Opertti, R. (2011). Developing inclusive teachers from an inclusive curricular perspective. Prospects, 41, 459-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9205-7
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007, Winter). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230-238.
Correa-Torres, S. M. (2008, May). Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102(5), 272-283.
Hemmingsson, H., Lidstrom, H., & Nygard, L. (2009, July-August). Use of assistive technology devices in mainstream schools: students’perspective. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 463-472.
Johnson, A. B. (1987, Spring). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: implications for inservice training and teaching the handicapped. Education, 107(3), 229-233.
Jones, M. N., Thorn, C. R., Chow, P., & Wild, C. (2002, Spring). Equifinality: parents’ and students’ attitudes towards a student-centered approach to integration. Education, 122(3), 624-635.
Junkala, J., & Mooney, J. F. (1986, April). Special education students in regular classes: what happened to the pyramid? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(4).
Leyser, Y., & Tappendorf, K. (2001, Summer). . Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing: a case of teachers in two rural school districts?, 121(4), 751-760.
Rae, H., & McKenzie, K. (2010, December). Teachers’ attitudes to mainstream schooling. Learning Disability Practice, 13(10), 12-17.
