PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12358100

Assessing and helping challenging students: Part One, Why do some students have difficulty learning?

Abstract

When students struggle with routine assignments and fall behind classmates, a busy teacher may pigeonhole them as slow, give up on them, or become frustrated from failed efforts to bring them up to speed. Well-intentioned efforts to help struggling students by providing repetitions of the same experiences may fail because the specific cause of the sub-par performance was not identified. Six potential causes of inadequate student performance can serve as a diagnostic framework to help teachers pinpoint why a student is struggling academically: 1) cognitive factors, including poorly integrated, compartmentalized information, poor metacognition that hinders the student's ability to monitor and self-correct performance, bona fide learning disabilities that require professional assessment and treatment, and sensory-perceptual difficulties that may hinder performance in certain health care disciplines; 2) ineffective study habits, which are more common among professional students than faculty realize; 3) an inadequate educational experience (unclear objectives, poorly organized instruction, absence of coaching and timely feedback) or a punitive environment in which students avoid approaching instructors for assistance; 4) distraction due to nonacademic issues such as social relationships, health of a spouse, or employment; 5) dysfunctional levels of defensiveness that hinder student-teacher communication; and 6) underlying medical conditions that may affect student attentiveness, motivation, energy, and emotional balance. The objective of this article is to help faculty recognize potential underlying causes of a student's learning problems. Strategies for helping the academically struggling student are also introduced for several of these etiologies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

William D Hendricson, John H Kleffner. 2002. Assessing and helping challenging students: Part One, Why do some students have difficulty learning?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12358100/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗