Revisiting the Roles of Literacy Coaches: Does Reality Match Research?

This study surveyed 104 school-based elementary literacy coaches to explore their perceptions of their roles as coaches. These perceptions were then examined relative to the Standards for Reading Professionals—Revised 2010, developed by the International Reading Association. Overall, coaches reported the majority of the tasks they carried out as coaches were tasks they believed should be part of the role of a coach. They most highly valued tasks that allowed them to interact with and support teachers, ultimately leading to improved student achievement. Coaches also indicated a lack of clarity about their role in supporting the standards related to diversity.     

Where Hypotheses Come From: Learning New Relations by Structural Alignment

We test whether comparison can promote learning of new relational abstractions. In Experiment 1, preschoolers heard labels for novel spatial patterns and were asked to extend the label to one of two alternatives: one sharing an object with the standard or one having the same relational pattern as the standard. Children strongly preferred the object match when given one standard but were significantly more likely to choose the relational match when they compared two standards. Experiment 2 provided evidence that comparison processing—as opposed to simply seeing two exemplars—is necessary for this relational effect. Preschoolers who were shown the two standards sequentially without a prompt to compare them preferred object matches, as did those who viewed only one standard. In contrast, those who saw the exemplars together, with a prompt to compare them, showed the same elevated relational responding as found in Experiment 1. We suggest that structural alignment processes are crucial to developing new relational abstractions.     

Language Helps Children Succeed on a Classic Analogy Task

Adult humans show exceptional relational ability relative to other species. In this research, we trace the development of this ability in young children. We used a task widely used in comparative research—the relational match‐to‐sample task, which requires participants to notice and match the identity relation: for example, AA should match BB instead of CD. Despite the simplicity of this relation, children under 4 years of age failed to pass this test (Experiment 1), and their performance did not improve even with initial feedback (Experiment 2). In Experiments 3 and 4, we found that two kinds of symbolic‐linguistic experience can facilitate relational reasoning in young children. Our findings suggest that children learn to become adept analogical thinkers, and that language fosters this learning in at least two distinct ways.     

Dating Violence Victimization,Dispositional Aggression,and Nonsuicidal Self‐Injury among Psychiatrically Hospitalized Male and Female Adolescents

The objective of the current study was to characterize the association between dating violence victimization and dispositional aggression in predicting nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI) among psychiatrically hospitalized male and female adolescents. One hundred fifty‐five adolescents (ages 13–17) and their parents completed the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School‐Age Children clinical interview to assess NSSI and child abuse; adolescents completed self‐report measures of aggression and dating violence victimization (verbal, physical, and sexual). Dating violence victimization and NSSI were found to be highly prevalent among both males and females in this psychiatric inpatient sample. Two moderational models were supported, wherein dating violence was associated with NSSI in the context of elevated trait anger in males and indirect aggression in females. Findings suggest that helping victims of dating violence acquire skills to address certain forms of dispositional aggression may attenuate NSSI.     

Book Reviews

Pastoral Psychology -     

When What You Want is What You Get: Pay Dispersion and Communal Sharing Preference

The question of whether pay structures should be compressed or dispersed remains unanswered. We argue that pay dispersion can yield uncertainty regarding others' intentions and behaviors; as a result, individuals take a greater risk trusting their group members as pay spreads widen. Accordingly, we explore the conditions under which individuals are more willing to take this risk by viewing their group members as trustworthy even when pay is dispersed. Specifically, preferences for how relationships and resources should be structured in groups should help to determine when pay dispersion relates to trustworthiness perceptions. We hypothesise that the cross‐level interaction between preferences for communal sharing (Level 1)—that is, the extent to which individuals prefer communal, egalitarian structures in their groups—and pay dispersion (Level 2) is associated with trust perceptions. Data drawn from a sample of university professors support our hypothesised cross‐level interaction, and show that when pay dispersion is greater, individuals perceive their group members as more trustworthy only when they have weak preferences for communal sharing. Our results signify the importance of individual attributes to understanding pay dispersion's effects, and show that trust is fostered when preferences and pay conditions are aligned.