Search

Elite boarding schools endeavor to instill in their students elite-class solidarity, strong beliefs in both meritocracy and the essential rightness of the status quo, and practical political know-how. Each of these objectives is wholly compatible with the self-interest of their students and their families. In the vast majority of working-class schools, class-consciousness is discouraged, individual effort is valorized, and collective effort is denigrated; faith in meritocracy and the rightness of the status quo go unchallenged, and practical political know-how is replaced by a naive, Disneyland concept of American democracy. None of this is compatible with the self-interest of working-class students, and, therefore, they remain unmotivated and experience little school success. Weekend schools for children run by the American Socialist Party from 1900 to 1920 were based on assumptions compatible with working-class self-interest and offer a model for motivating and educating working-class students today. (Contains 6 notes.)

Purpose: The purpose of this tutorial is to describe 10 criteria that may help clinicians distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims. The criteria are illustrated, first for considering whether to use a newly developed treatment and second for attempting to understand arguments about controversial treatments. Method: Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear to be based on the scientific method but are not. Ten criteria for distinguishing between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims are described. These criteria are illustrated by using them to assess a current treatment for stuttering, the SpeechEasy device. The authors read the available literature about the device and developed a consensus set of decisions about the 10 criteria. To minimize any bias, a second set of independent judges evaluated a sample of the same literature. The criteria are also illustrated by using them to assess controversies surrounding 2 treatment approaches: Fast ForWord and facilitated communication. Conclusions: Clinicians are increasingly being held responsible for the evidence base that supports their practice. The power of these 10 criteria lies in their ability to help clinicians focus their attention on the credibility of that base and to guide their decisions for recommending or using a treatment.

In light of emerging findings concerning untreated recovery and neural plasticity, this paper re-examines the viability of an NIH conference recommendation [Cooper, J. A. (1990). Research directions in stuttering: Consensus and conflict. In Cooper, J. A. (Ed.), "Research needs in stuttering: Roadblocks and future directions" (pp. 98-100). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.] that adults who have recovered from stuttering might inform our understanding of the nature and treatment of persistent stuttering. It is suggested that those who have recovered could constitute a behavioral, cognitive, and neurophysiologic benchmark for evaluating stuttering treatment for adolescents and adults, while helping to identify the limits of recovery from a persistent disorder. This possibility seems especially promising because of findings from recent studies investigating untreated recovery during childhood and adulthood, the emerging evidence concerning neural plasticity and reorganization, and reports of neural system changes during stuttering treatment. Potential obstacles to applying findings from unassisted recovery to treatment do exist, but the benefits of attempts to fully understand stuttering certainly outweigh the difficulties. Educational objectives: After completing this activity, the learner will be able to: (1) describe two complexities involved in determining whether recovery from stuttering was assisted or unassisted; (2) discuss the implications for stuttering research of two neural plasticity research findings from areas other than stuttering; and (3) evaluate the possible implications for stuttering treatment of a coordinated research program that addresses behavioral, cognitive, and neurological characteristics of assisted and unassisted recovery from stuttering.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of recovery from stuttering based on the experiences of adults who recovered without treatment. Using a semi-structured, open-ended interview format, 15 speakers verified as persons who recovered without treatment were asked to describe their status as everyday speakers. Seven speakers reported that they no longer stuttered and eight reported that they still stuttered on occasion. Interview material was coded and analyzed by the investigators and checked by independent judges. Results suggested that complete recovery was possible for speakers who reported that they no longer stuttered; whereas, those who still stuttered occasionally appeared to no longer be handicapped by stuttering, but required some vigilance to maintain their relatively fluent speech. Educational objectives: After completing this activity, the learner will be able to: (1) describe the relevance of self-report data for evaluating the nature of recovery from stuttering without treatment; (2) describe the differences in self-perception concerning the nature of recovery for those who no longer have any tendency to stutter compared to those who still have an occasional tendency to stutter; and (3) suggest the possible implications for understanding the nature of recovery from persistent stuttering based on investigations of late recovery without treatment. (Contains 2 tables and 2 figures.)

The difficulties of generalization and maintenance in stuttering treatment is discussed. Three strategies for promoting generalization and maintenance in school settings are suggested based on current research evidence: probing and training for generalization; incorporating real-life elements into therapy; and training clients to self-regulate their behavior. (Contains references.) (Author/CR)

This study examined a validation procedure combining self-reports with independent verification to identify cases of recovery from stuttering without formal treatment. A Speech Behavior Checklist was administered to 42 individuals familiar with recovered subjects' past speech. Analysis of subjects' descriptions of their past stuttering was corroborated by the independent informants on the checklist. (DB)

Twelve adult stutterers were instructed to self-rate the speech naturalness (how natural their speech sounds) and feel naturalness (the amount of attention they are paying to the way they are speaking) of their speech under a variety of conditions across repeated rating occasions. Results showed that subjects were relatively consistent and valid self-raters. (Author/JDD)

The conference "Community Networking '96" looked at ways computer and information technologies can be used to strengthen communities and improve civic life. In one workshop, speakers addressed the relationship between libraries and community networks, stressing that librarians are in the best position to pursue grants, raise public awareness, and sustain support for community networks. (PEN)