Self-Rated Physical Attractiveness, Attractiveness Standards, and Expectation Deviations in Romantic Partners Among Non-Married University Students

This study surveyed unmarried, randomly selected university students to discover how they rated themselves regarding physical attractiveness, what range of attractiveness they would consider in a romantic partner, and what would cause them to deviate from this range. The results showed that the most frequently chosen rating for self-attractiveness was a 7 (on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most attractive) for both men and women. A t-test showed that men had a slightly higher mean of rating than women in their own level of attractiveness, though these results were not statistically significant. When asked for a range of attractiveness that respondents were willing to consider in a dating partner, the most frequently chosen number for the lowest level was 7. For the highest level of attractiveness in their range, about half of the participants selected 10. A t-test revealed that women had a slightly lower mean for the low end of the range of attractiveness they were willing to accept in a dating partner than males, which was statistically significant. Another t-test, though not statistically significant, revealed that men had a slightly higher mean in the high range of attractiveness they were willing to accept in a dating partner than women. Perhaps the most interesting finding was that not only were both genders willing to deviate from their standard of attractiveness in a dating partner (given the right circumstances), but women were much more likely to deviate than men

Self-Rated Physical Attractiveness, Attractiveness Standards, and Expectation Deviations in Romantic Partners Among Non-Married University Students

This study surveyed unmarried, randomly selected university students to discover how they rated themselves regarding physical attractiveness, what range of attractiveness they would consider in a romantic partner, and what would cause them to deviate from this range. The results showed that the most frequently chosen rating for self-attractiveness was a 7 (on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most attractive) for both men and women. A t-test showed that men had a slightly higher mean of rating than women in their own level of attractiveness, though these results were not statistically significant. When asked for a range of attractiveness that respondents were willing to consider in a dating partner, the most frequently chosen number for the lowest level was 7. For the highest level of attractiveness in their range, about half of the participants selected 10. A t-test revealed that women had a slightly lower mean for the low end of the range of attractiveness they were willing to accept in a dating partner than males, which was statistically significant. Another t-test, though not statistically significant, revealed that men had a slightly higher mean in the high range of attractiveness they were willing to accept in a dating partner than women. Perhaps the most interesting finding was that not only were both genders willing to deviate from their standard of attractiveness in a dating partner (given the right circumstances), but women were much more likely to deviate than men

Providing the Context for Intentional Learning

This article is written in response to Sharon Derry's article “Remediating Academic Difficulties Through Strategy Training: The Acquisition of Useful Knowledge.” The features of effective strategy instruction, to which Derry refers, are illustrated by examining the nature of the decisions the teacher confronts; specifically, determining the purposes of instruction, the context in which instruction occurs, and the roles of the teacher and students in instruction.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69150/2/10.1177_074193259001100608.pd

Why We Can't Say Much About the Status of Students with Disabilities During Education Reform (NCEO Synthesis Reports)

A report examining assessment and accommodations policies and practices in relation to K-12 students with disabilities.The Center is supported through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (1990-1995: H159C00004; 1995-2000: H159C50004). Opinions or points of view expressed within this document do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it

Assessment and intervention issues and models in School Psychology : the case of Europe and North America

As práticas da Psicologia Escolar parecem ser cada vez mais marcadas pelas necessidades de referenciação/diagnóstico de crianças para o subsistema de educação especial, em detrimento do desenho e implementação de intervenções dirigidas aos problemas específicos dos alunos. A aparente insatisfação dos psicólogos escolares com essa tendência, bem como as dificuldades na utilização de modelos categoriais de diagnóstico em contexto escolar, têm dado origem à progressiva implementação de modelos alternativos de avaliação e intervenção, principalmente de modelos Response to Intervention, Curriculum-Based Measurement e Problem Solving. A controvérsia quanto à natureza verdadeiramente alternativa desses modelos parece, no entanto, longe de se esgotar. Neste artigo são discutidas vantagens e limitações dos diferentes modelos, de acordo com a melhor evidência disponível na literatura, e são ainda equacionadas as suas implicações nas práticas da Psicologia Escolar. Practices in School Psychology seem to be increasingly restricted to referrals/diagnosis of children for the sub-system of special education instead of being focused on the design and implementation of interventions for students with specific problems. The apparent dissatisfaction of school psychologists with this trend and the difficulties dealing with categorical diagnostic models within the school context have stimulated a movement toward the implementation of alternative assessment and intervention models, such as Response to Intervention, Curriculum-Based Measurement and Problem-Solving. However, the controversy about the true alternative nature of these models seems far from being exhausted. The aim of this paper is to discuss the benefits and limitations of the different models according to the best evidence available. We also consider the implications for practices in School PsychologyPractices in School Psychology seem to be increasingly restricted to referrals/diagnosis of children for the sub-system of special education instead of being focused on the design and implementation of interventions for students with specific problems. The apparent dissatisfaction of school psychologists with this trend and the difficulties dealing with categorical diagnostic models within the school context have stimulated a movement toward the implementation of alternative assessment and intervention models, such as Response to Intervention, Curriculum-Based Measurement and Problem-Solving. However, the controversy about the true alternative nature of these models seems far from being exhausted. The aim of this paper is to discuss the benefits and limitations of the different models according to the best evidence available. We also consider the implications for practices in School Psychology(undefined

Examining the Context of Strategy Instruction

The goal of literacy instruction is to teach reading and writing as tools to facilitate thinking and reasoning in a broad array of literacy events. An important difference in the disposition of children to participate in literacy experiences is the extent to which they engage in intentional self-regulated learning. The contexts attending six traditional models of strategy instruction are examined. An exploratory study, conducted with heterogeneous third graders, is reported, examining the implementation and outcomes of three models of strategy instruction—Direct Instruction, Reciprocal Teaching, and Collaborative Problem Solving—which manipulated teacher and student control of activity, as well as the instructional context.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69008/2/10.1177_074193259101200306.pd

Labeling Preschoolers as Learning Disabled: A Cautionary Position

The purpose of this article is to explore the issues concerning the adaptation of school-based service delivery concepts for use in early childhood special education programs. The use of categorical labels for determining eligibility for preschool children is not required by law—and may be detrimental. The following concerns are discussed: (a) definitional issues in learning disabilities versus low achievement, (b) the dangers of labeling and low expectation sets, (c) repeated failure to demonstrate movement through a continuum of services (particularly to least restrictive environments), and (d) the efficacy of early intervention and school-based special services for those with mild or suspected developmental disabilities. Research is reviewed concerning definitional and assessment issues utilizing learning disabilities as a construct. Alternatives for describing the characteristics of young children who are significantly at risk or developmentally delayed are provided.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

From Biology to Mathematical Models and Back: Teaching Modeling to Biology Students, and Biology to Math and Engineering Students

We describe the development of a course to teach modeling and mathematical analysis skills to students of biology and to teach biology to students with strong backgrounds in mathematics, physics, or engineering. The two groups of students have different ways of learning material and often have strong negative feelings toward the area of knowledge that they find difficult. To give students a sense of mastery in each area, several complementary approaches are used in the course: 1) a “live” textbook that allows students to explore models and mathematical processes interactively; 2) benchmark problems providing key skills on which students make continuous progress; 3) assignment of students to teams of two throughout the semester; 4) regular one-on-one interactions with instructors throughout the semester; and 5) a term project in which students reconstruct, analyze, extend, and then write in detail about a recently published biological model. Based on student evaluations and comments, an attitude survey, and the quality of the students' term papers, the course has significantly increased the ability and willingness of biology students to use mathematical concepts and modeling tools to understand biological systems, and it has significantly enhanced engineering students' appreciation of biology