Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 587–601

Achievement is a Relation, Not a Trait: The Gravity of the Situation

Article
  • 131 Downloads

Abstract

Ability and achievement are not traits: they are relations. Mistaking traits for relations has a history even in science (our understanding of gravity). This mistake is possibly responsible for the lackluster performance of the results of our educational research when we have tried to use it to inform policy. It is particularly troublesome for interventions that target “children at risk.” The paper provides a quasi-formal outline of achievement as a relation and it then uses the outline to explain some problematic research findings.

Keywords

Educational theory Educational policy At-risk Interventions 

References

  1. Baker, F. (1992). The basics of item response. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  2. Birnhaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bock, R. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 605–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borsbom, D., Mellenberg, G., & vanHeerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodkin, K. (2000). How Jews became white folks and what that says about race in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. (1996a). Arenas of language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H. (1996b). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, H., & Schober, M. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corrado, G. (2003). Location effect measurement error: Evidence of a network explanation of our failure to close persistent achievement gaps. Dissertation Abstracts.Google Scholar
  11. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense. Oxford, UK: The Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, C., Hout, M., Jankowski, M., Lucas, S., Swindler, A., & Voss, K. (1996). Inequality by design: cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gardner, H. (2004). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, H., & Smith, D. (1997). Gravity: The glue of the universe. History and activities. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hambleton, R., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Huslander, J., Olson, R., Wilcutt, E., & Wadsworth, S. (2010). Longitudinal stability of reading-related skills and their prediction of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14(2), 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin, M. (2010). Scale-free network provides an optimal pattern for knowledge transfer. Physica Acta, 389(3), 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacMurray, J. (1957). The self as agent. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  20. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show non-uniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pastor, P., & Reuben, C. (2008). Diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disability: United States, 2004–2006. Vital and Health Statistics, 10(237).Google Scholar
  22. Russell, B. (1959). The problems of philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skiba, R., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411–424.Google Scholar
  25. Zumbo, B., & Gelin, M. (2005). A matter of test bias in educational policy research: Bringing the context into the picture by investigating sociological/community moderated (or mediated) test and item bias. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public PolicyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations