Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 521–553 | Cite as

Special ways of knowing in science: expansive learning opportunities with bilingual children with learning disabilities

  • Patricia Martínez-Álvarez
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The field of bilingual special education is currently plagued with contradictions resulting in a serious underrepresentation of emergent bilinguals with learning disabilities in professional science fields. This underrepresentation is due in large part to the fact that educational systems around the world are inadequately prepared to address the educational needs of these children; this inadequacy is rooted in a lack of understanding of the linguistic and cultural factors impacting learning. Accepting such a premise and assuming that children learn in unexpected ways when instructional practices attend to culture and language, this study documents a place-based learning experience integrating geoscience and literacy in a fourth-grade dual language classroom. Data sources include transcribed audio-taped conversations from learning experience sessions and interviews that took place as six focus children, who had been identified as having specific learning disabilities, read published science texts (i.e. texts unaltered linguistically or conceptually to meet the needs of the readers). My analysis revealed that participants generated responses that were often unexpected if solely analyzed from those Western scientific perspectives traditionally valued in school contexts. However, these responses were also full of purposeful and rich understandings that revealed opportunities for expansive learning. Adopting a cultural historical activity theory perspective, instructional tools such as texts, visuals, and questions were found to act as mediators impacting the learning in both activity systems: (a) teacher-researcher learning from children, and (b) children learning from teachers. I conclude by suggesting that there is a need to understand students’ ways of knowing to their full complexity, and to deliberately recognize teachers as learners, researchers, and means to expansive learning patterns that span beyond traditional learning boundaries.

Keywords

Bilingual education Disabilities Place-based geoscience Instructional technology Expansive learning 

Resumen

El campo de educación especial bilingüe está plagado de contradicciones que han provocado una falta de representación en los campos profesionales de las ciencias de aprendices bilingües que tienen dificultades de aprendizaje. La limitada representación se debe en parte al hecho de que en todo el mundo los sistemas educativos no están adecuadamente preparados para cubrir las necesidades educativas de estos niños; esta falta de preparación surge del poco entendimiento de factores linguísticos y culturales que afectan el aprendizaje de estos niños. Este estudio acepta este principio y asume que los niños aprenden de forma inesperada cuando las practicas educativas prestan una atención adecuada a la cultural y el lenguaje, y documenta una experiencia de aprendizaje localizada en la comunidad e integrando lectoescritura en la geociencia en una clase bilingüe de cuarto grado de primaria. Los datos de este estudio incluyen conversaciones llevadas a cabo durante las diferentes sesiones de aprendizaje que fueron grabadas y transcritas, y entrevistas con seis niños clasificados con dificultades de aprendizaje, mientras éstos leían textos de ciencias publicados (textos no alterados ni linqüística ni conceptualmente). El análisis de los datos revela que los participantes generaron respuestas que a menudo eran inesperadas si se analizaban solo desde una perspectiva cientifica occidental, que es la que se valora más en contextos educativos. Sin embargo, las respuestas de los niños estaban repletas de entendimientos de gran riqueza de las que surgieron oportunidades para un aprendizaje expansivo. Tomando una perspectiva socio-cultural histórica basada en la actividad, herramientas de enseñanza tales como textos, visuals, y preguntas actuaron como mediadores impactando el aprendizaje en los dos sistemas de la actividad: (a) maestro-investigador aprendiendo de los niños, y (b) los niños aprendiendo de los maestros. El artículo sugiere que se necesita entender las formas complejas de aprender de los estudiantes, y reconocer a los maestros de forma deliberada como aprendices, investigadores, y mediadores de patrones de aprendizaje expansivo que llegan más allá de las delimitaciones formales del aprendizaje.

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank María Torres-Guzmán, María Paula Ghiso, and the lead editor for their contributions on previous drafts of this article.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. (2001). Integrating Western and aboriginal sciences: cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Education, 31, 337–355. doi: 10.1023/A:1013151709605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Effects of prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Teaching Research Quarterly, 20, 420–436. doi: 10.2307/747852.Google Scholar
  3. American Geological Institute. (2009). Status of the geoscience workforce. Alexandria, VA. http://www.agiweb.org/workforce/reports.html Accessed November 10 2012.
  4. Asher, P. (2001). Teaching an introductory physical geology course to a student with visual impairment. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49, 166–169. http://www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/mar01.html#v49p166.
  5. Atchison, C. L. (2011). The significance of access: students with mobility impairments constructing geoscience knowledge through field-based learning experiences (Doctoral dissertation). http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898368486?accountid=10226 Accessed December 13 2013.
  6. Baglieri, S., & Moses, A. (2010). “My name is jay”: On teachers’ roles in the overrepresentation of minorities in special education and what teacher education can do. Disabilities Studies Quarterly, 30(2). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1243/1287.
  7. Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226924601.001.0001.Google Scholar
  10. Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique ((revised edition) ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Bialystok, E. (2010). Global–local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition. Developmental Psychology, 46, 93–105. doi: 10.1037/a0015466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blair, B. (2009). Reading beyond the textbook: Why is extensive reading important?. Fremmedspråksenteret: Østfold University College.Google Scholar
  14. Boynton, M., & Boynton, C. (2005). Educator’s guide to preventing and solving discipline problems. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  15. Brandenburg, A. M., & Carroll, M. S. (1995). Your place or mine?: The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 381–398. doi: 10.1080/08941929509380931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brkich, D. L. M. (2011). Making connections between formal school earth science and lived experiences: An investigation of urban fifth graders. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. 922398985).Google Scholar
  17. Carlisle, J. F. (1999). Free recall as a test of reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 11–22. doi: 10.2307/1511148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Cheek, K. A. (2010). Commentary: A summary and analysis of twenty-seven years of geosciences conceptions research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58, 122–134. doi: 10.5408/1.3544294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connor, C., & Prakash, A. (2008). Experiential discoveries in geoscience education: The EDGE program in Alaska. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56, 179–186. http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/connor-v56p179.pdf.
  21. De la Cruz, R. E. (1996). Assessment-bias issues in special education: A review of literature. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse: EC 304 511.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1959). School and society. In M. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  24. Engeström, Y. (1996). Developmental work research as educational research. Nordisk Pedagogic, 16, 131–143.Google Scholar
  25. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511812774.025.
  26. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Engeström, Y. (2004) New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Paper presented to the Department of Information Systems ‘ICTs in the contemporary world’ seminar, LSE, January 2004. doi: 10.1108/13665620410521477.
  28. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–329). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809989.020.
  29. European Commission (2009). Study on the contribution of multilingualism to creativity: final report. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/documents/study_on_the_contribution_of_multilingualism_to_creativity/compendium_part_1_en.pdf Accessed November 20 2013.
  30. García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. In Equity matters: Research review No. 1. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. http://www.equitycampaign.org/i/a/document/6532_Ofelia_ELL__Final.pdf.
  31. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169. doi: 10.2307/1167289.Google Scholar
  32. Ghiso, M. P., Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Dernikos, B. P. (2013). Writing from and with community knowledge: First-grade emergent bilinguals’ engagements with technology-integrated curricula. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Exploring technology in writing and writing instruction (pp. 169–185). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  33. Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gyllenhaal, E. D., & Perry, D. L. (2004). Phase one of formative evaluation for the trail of time at grand canyon national park. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. http://trailoftime.org/documents/TrailOfTimeFormative.pdf.
  36. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1985). Introduction to learning disabilties (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Haring, N., & Bateman, B. (1977). Teaching the learning disabled child. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  38. Hauge, A. L. (2007). Identity and place: a critical comparison of three identity theories. Architectural Science Review, 50, 44–51. doi: 10.3763/asre.2007.5007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., Bailey, D., Scarborough, A., Mallik, S., Simeonsson, R., Singer, M., & Nelson, L. (2007). Early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: Participants, services, and outcomes. Final report of the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. https://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/neils_finalreport_200702.pdfIndividuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA 2004), 20 U.S.C. § 1400.
  40. Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press. doi: 10.1080/19388076609556948.Google Scholar
  41. Karlstrom, K., Semken, S., Crossey, L., Perry, D., Gyllenhaal, E., Dodick, J., Williams, M., Hellmich-Bryan, J., Crow, R., Watts, N. B., & Ault, C. (2008). Informal geoscience education on a grand scale: The trail of time exhibition at Grand Canyon. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56, 354–361. http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/informal_geoscience_education_.pdf.
  42. Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method: child-centeredness in progressive education. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–334. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4954/.
  43. Kortz, K. M., & Murray, D. P. (2009). Barriers to college students learning how rocks form. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57, 300–315. doi: 10.5408/1.3544282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–338. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kusnick, J. (2002). Growing pebbles and conceptual prisms- understanding the source of student misconceptions about rock formations. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50, 31–39. http://www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Kusnick_v50n1p31.pdf.
  47. Lawton, K. E., Gerdes, A. C., Haack, L. M., & Scheneider, B. (2014). Acculturation, cultural values, and Latino parental beliefs about the etiology of ADHD. Administration and Policy In Mental Health, 41, 189–204. doi: 10.1007/s10488-012-0447-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296:AID-TEA1007>3.3.CO;2-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The concept of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wetsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  50. Martínez, P., Bannan, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Bilingual students’ ideas and conceptual change about slow geomorphological changes caused by water. Journal of Geoscience Education, 60, 54–67. doi: 10.5408/09-145.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Bannan, B. (2013). Blending practices: DBR and CALL to enrich emergent bilingual learners’ concept and language development. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) Journal, 11, 127–156. https://calico.org/page.php?id=626.
  52. Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Bannan, B. (2014). An exploration of hybrid spaces for place-based geomorphology with Latino bilingual children. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62, 104–117. doi: 10.5408/12-407.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martínez-Álvarez, P., & Ghiso, M. P. (2014). Multilingual, multimodal compositions in technology-mediated hybrid spaces. In R. S. Anderson & C. Mims, (Eds.). Digital Tools for Writing Instruction in K-12 Settings: Student Perception and Experience. IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5982-7.ch010.
  54. Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25, 91–102. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00063-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCray, A. D., & García, S. B. (2002). The stories we must tell: Developing a research agenda for multicultural and bilingual special education. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 599–612. doi: 10.1080/0951839022000014330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McRuer, R. (2006). Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mellard, D., Byrd, S., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J., & Boesche, L. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying the model responsiveness-to-intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243–256. doi: 10.2307/1593676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Minow, M. L. (2001). Limited English proficient students and special education. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/lep_sp_ed/ Accessed January 3 2014.
  59. Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S. C., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to speak: Electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 224–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141. doi: 10.1080/00405849209543534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D. L., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access: Atlanta, Georgia. http://www.catea.gatech.edu/scitrain/accommodating.pdf Accessed September 25 2015.
  62. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2012). Are minority children disproportionately represented in early intervention and early childhood special education? Educational Researcher, 41, 339–351. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12459678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. National Park Service (2013). http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca Accessed September 23 2013.
  64. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf Accessed December 20 2015.
  65. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/4962/national-science-education-standards Accessed September 20 2014.
  66. Nersessian, N. J. (1987). A cognitive-historical approach to meaning in scientific theories. In N. J. Nersessian (Ed.), Science and philosophy: The process of science (pp. 161–177). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-3519-8_9.
  67. Nuñez-Oviedo, M. C., & Clement, J. (2002). An instructional method derived from model construction and criticism theory. Paper presented at the NARST Conference, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  68. OECD. (2011). Against the odds: disadvantaged students who succeed in school. OECD Publishing,. doi: 10.1787/9789264090873-en.Google Scholar
  69. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6, 281–307. doi: 10.1515/applirev-2015-0014.
  70. Parrish, T. (2000). Disparities in the Identification, Funding, and Provision of Special Education. Submitted to the Civil Rights Project for the Conference on Minority Issues in Special Education in Public Schools. http://www.csef-air.org/publications/csef/harv.pdf.
  71. Platten, L. (1995). Talking Geography: An investigation into young children’s understanding of geographical terms. International Journal of Early Years Education, 3, 74–92. doi: 10.1080/0966976950030108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education. http://education.ucf.edu/mirc/Research/President’s%20Commission%20on%20Excellence%20in%20Special%20Education.pdf.
  73. Ransdell, S., Barbier, M., & Niit, T. (2006). Metacognitions about language skill and working memory among monolingual and bilingual college students: When does multilingualism matter? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 728–741. doi: 10.2167/beb390.0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rodriguez, A. J. (1997). The dangerous discourse of invisibility: A critique of the National Research Council’s National Science Education Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 19–37. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<19:AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011 American Community Survey reports. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf Accessed July 29 2014.
  76. Semken, S. (2005). Sense of place and place-based introductory geoscience teaching for American Indian and Alaska Native undergraduates. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 149–157. http://www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/mar05.html#v53p149.
  77. Semken, S., & Butler Freeman, C. (2008). Sense of place in the practice and assessment of place-based science teaching. Science Education, 92, 1042–1057. doi: 10.1002/sce.20279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shifrer, D., Callahan, R. M., & Muller, C. (2013). Equity or marginalization? The high school course-taking of students labeled with a learning disability. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 656–682. doi: 10.3102/0002831213479439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sleeter, C. E. (1987). Why is there learning disabilities? a critical analysis of the birth of the field with its social context. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: the struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 210–237). London: Palmer Press.Google Scholar
  80. Smith, G., & Sobel, D. (2010). Bring it on home. Educational Leadership, 68, 38–43.Google Scholar
  81. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: connecting classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.Google Scholar
  83. State Symbols USA. (n.d.). http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/. Accessed September 23 2013.
  84. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Birney, D. P., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., & Jeltova, I. (2007). Dynamic instruction for and assessment of developing expertise in four ethnic groups (RM07226). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  85. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. The trail of time (2010). Retrieved August 20, 2013, http://tot.unm.edu/what_is_it.html U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: 2009 and 2011 Science Assessments [Data file]. http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2011/g8_nat.asp?tab_id=tab2andsubtab_id=Tab_7#chart Accessed 12 November 2012.
  87. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of development of higher mental functions, Chapter 2: Research method. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  89. Wertsch, J.V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J.V. Wertsch, (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. (pp. 178–0192). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CCOL0521831040.008.
  90. Williams, D., & Semken, S. (2001). Ethnographic methods in analysis of place-based geoscience curriculum and pedagogy. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 474, 49–62. doi: 10.1130/2011.2474(05).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options