Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

  • 145 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baker, F. (1992). The basics of item response. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.

  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.

  3. Bock, R. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29–51.

  4. Bollen, K. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 605–634.

  5. Borsbom, D., Mellenberg, G., & vanHeerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219.

  6. Brodkin, K. (2000). How Jews became white folks and what that says about race in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

  7. Clark, H. (1996a). Arenas of language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

  8. Clark, H. (1996b). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  9. Clark, H., & Schober, M. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211–232.

  10. Corrado, G. (2003). Location effect measurement error: Evidence of a network explanation of our failure to close persistent achievement gaps. Dissertation Abstracts.

  11. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense. Oxford, UK: The Oxford University Press.

  12. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press.

  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.

  14. Gardner, H. (2004). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Basic Books.

  15. Gilbert, H., & Smith, D. (1997). Gravity: The glue of the universe. History and activities. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.

  16. Hambleton, R., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  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.

  18. Lin, M. (2010). Scale-free network provides an optimal pattern for knowledge transfer. Physica Acta, 389(3), 473–480.

  19. MacMurray, J. (1957). The self as agent. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

  20. Narayanan, P., & Swaminathan, H. (1996). Identification of items that show non-uniform DIF. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 257–274.

  21. Pastor, P., & Reuben, C. (2008). Diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disability: United States, 2004–2006. Vital and Health Statistics, 10(237).

  22. Russell, B. (1959). The problems of philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Gail Corrado.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Corrado, G. Achievement is a Relation, Not a Trait: The Gravity of the Situation. Stud Philos Educ 31, 587–601 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9311-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Educational theory
  • Educational policy
  • At-risk
  • Interventions