<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Andrea P Beam</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2011  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam</link>
<description>Recent documents in Andrea P Beam</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:52:45 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>


	
		
	

	
		
	







<item>
<title>Differentiation and Faith: Improve the Learning Process by Finding Every Student’s God-Given Talents</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/6</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/6</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:21:58 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrea Beam et al.</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Differentiation and Faith: Improve the Learning Process by Finding Every Student’s God-Given Talents</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/5</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/5</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:21:57 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrea Beam et al.</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>The Effects of Poverty  in the Role of Schools: Implications for Teacher-Preparation Programs</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/4</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/4</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 08:21:12 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Deanna L. Keith Dr. et al.</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Is Brain Gym an Effective Educational intervention?</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/3</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/3</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:25:50 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Brain Gym® (BG) (BGI, 2008) is a popular commercial program sold by Brain Gym® International (BGI). Making extravagant claims for improved intellectual and physical development, it used in more than 80 countries. While BGI’s claims are persuasive, to date there is little empirical evidence validating the approach. We examine some theoretical assumptions from which BGI was developed, review the efficacy literature, and provide suggestions for making informed decisions about the judiciousness of investing time and resources in this program.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Lucinda S. Spaulding et al.</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Standards Based Differentiation:  Identifying the Concept of Multiple Intelligence for use with Students with Disabilities</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/2</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:37:05 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>With evolving eras in special education, an extreme concentration has been placed on accountability through high-stakes testing. In the past, only test scores of general education students were analyzed in most accountability efforts. Current laws, however, have extended accountability measures not only to include those students served in special education, but also to report their scores alongside their nondisabled peers.  With the increased focus on accountability through high-stakes testing, educators are searching for more effective means to educate students who are participating in special education programs. Differentiation has become a means to educate all spectrums of students with disabilities.  What is not evident, however, are the various methods used to differentiate lessons.  It is proposed that educators consider multiple intelligences when differentiating for their students who require alternative methods of instruction.  By incorporating different learning styles into daily plans, it is believed that all students will be reached academically.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Andrea P. Beam</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>A Time to Define: Making the Specific Learning Disability Definition Prescribe Specific Learning Disability</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/andrea_beam/1</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:37:04 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>Unlike other special education categories defined in U.S. law (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), the definition of specific learning disability (SLD) has not changed since first proposed in 1968. Thus, although the operational definition of SLD has responded to new knowledge and understanding about the construct, the formal definition has remained static for 40 years, creating a schism between theory and practice. Using concepts gleaned from the scientific study of formal and operational definitions as well as the history of another special education category (i.e., mental retardation), in this article we demonstrate why change in the SLD definition is necessary. Finally, we propose a change in the SLD definition in federal regulations to redress the disconnect between theory and practice and restore integrity to the SLD field.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Kenneth A. Kavale et al.</author>


</item>





</channel>
</rss>

