Ernst Thoutenhoofd

Birth months as predictor of ADHD medication use in Dutch school classes

Several international studies have shown that pupils who are comparatively young within their year group have a greater likelihood of being diagnosed with ADHD and receiving ADHD medication. The findings suggest that comparatively young but age-appropriate behaviour some pupils show in school may be confused with ADHD. This study investigates whether this noted association between birth month and ADHD medication is also found in the Netherlands; and if so, whether GPs (general practitioners) and teachers are aware of this association. Over 2000 birth dates of children between the ages of 5 and 12 were collected from GP client files. The data included whether children are prescribed methylphenidate, the most commonly used medication for ADHD. These data were analysed by descriptive statistics (graphs) and evaluative statistics (logistic regression analysis and relative risk). GPs and teachers were invited by questionnaire to report whether they knew of the association between birth month and ADHD. A significant correlation between birth month and methylphenidate prescription are found. Relatively young pupils are 2.43 times more likely to be prescribed methylphenidate than their older classmates. A majority of GPs and teachers report not being aware of an association between birth month and ADHD medication.

Learning to learn in the European Reference Framework for lifelong learning

This article explores the construction of learning to learn that is implicit in the document Key Competences for Lifelong Learning—European Reference Framework and related education policy from the European Commission. The authors argue that the hallmark of learning to learn is the development of a fluid sociality rather than the promotion of fluent task-oriented behaviour. They also make the case for greater attention to the embodied, situated, affective and creative dimensions of learning to learn. These are considered in the context of the main trends in EU lifelong learning policy over the last two decades, which indicate a narrow instrumentalist approach to learning situated firmly within the human capital paradigm. The authors focus on the internal coherence of the Framework, and on the tensions inherent in learning ‘outcomes’ that emphasise personal fulfilment and wellbeing, social cohesion and economic competitiveness respectively. This article is the first step in clarifying the epistemological basis of learning to learn, and wresting it from narrow identification with self-regulated learning and meta-cognition, and ultimately challenging a narrow reading of human capital theory.

Teachers' perceptions of behavioral problems in Dutch primary education pupils: The role of relative age

A growing number of studies suggest that relatively young behavior of pupils gives them a much greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a disorder such as ADHD. This ‘relative age effect’ has also been demonstrated for special educational needs, learning difficulties, being bullied, and so on. The current study investigated the relationship between relative age of pupils in primary education and teachers’ perception of their behavior. The study sample included 1973 pupils, aged between 6 and 12. Six linear mixed models were carried out with birth day in a year as predictor variable and ‘total problem score’, ‘problems with hyperactivity’, ‘behavioral problems’, ‘emotional problems’, ‘problems with peers’ and ‘pro-social behavior’ as dependent variables. Random intercepts were added for school and teacher level. Cluster-mean centering disaggregated between-school effects and within-school effects. We found no associations between relative age of pupils and teacher perceptions of their behavior. Several explanations are postulated to account for these findings which contradict prior studies on relative age effects.

Do troublesome pupils impact teacher perception of the behaviour of their classmates

Abstract The widely supported wish for more inclusive education places ever greater expectations on teachers’ abilities to teach all children, including those with special needs and challenging behaviours. The present study aimed at the question whether teachers judge pupil behaviour more negatively if there are more children with difficult behaviour in class. The teachers of 184 classes in 31 regular primary schools were asked to complete the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-L) for 3649 pupils. Six linear mixed models were carried out with as independent variable the number of pupils that teachers perceived to have ‘abnormal behaviour’, and the class mean without these pupils as the dependent variable. For all SDQ-L subscales – emotional problems, behavioural problems, problems with hyperactivity, problems with peers, poor prosocial behaviour and total problems – the number of pupils perceived as problematic was associated with less favourable teacher perceptions of the rest of the class. The results of this study are a plea for a contextual perspective on pupil behaviour in class, both where teachers are asked to report on individual pupils, as well as where interventions are done on emotional and behavioural problems in class.

The sound of study: Student experiences of listening in the university soundscape

The students from three universities (Groningen, Oldenburg and the University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht) were surveyed on the experience of hearing and listening in their studies. Included in the online survey were established questionnaires on hearing loss, tinnitus, hyperacusis, a subscale on psychosocial strain resulting from impaired hearing and a questionnaire about students’ perceptions of listening ease in study environments. Results from the 10,466 students who completed the survey (13% response rate) are highlighted, with particular attention to listening ease and measures proposed by students for improving it. The number of students having problems with hearing and listening transpires to be substantially larger when research is not constrained to students with a recognised hearing impairment, suggesting that listening is primarily a sociocultural performance and achievement rather than an artefact of physical attributes. One finding from our survey is that classroom practices could be more effective if study soundscapes are improved, while universities might exercise greater inclusive responsibility for study as a high quality sensory experience for the benefit of all students.

Ontplooiing door communicatie: Geschiedenis van het onderwijs aan doven en slechthorenden in Nederland

He treats memory, here, largely as an individual, psychological phenomenon, but that does not prevent him from slipping into discussion of writers such as Pierre Nora and Maurice Halwachs who consider memory within cultural and social frameworks. At times, Gardner conflates memory and oral history (p. 90), leading him to slide from a discussion of memory to problems of transcription (pp. 92–93). But memory is not the same as oral history. The use of living people’s testimony as a source is a technique for doing history, subject to methodological considerations analogous to using other kinds of sources, each posing distinctive problems. At other times, Gardner treats “memory” exclusively (but only implicitly) as the memory of someone being interviewed by an oral historian (e.g. p. 112). The chapter thus confuses oral history, memory and testimony. And still, there are felicitous pearls of insight to be found: “If history deprecates memory, it lays waste to its wellspring. If memory ignores history, it squanders its credibility” (p. 115). In conclusion Gardner asks his historian readers, was it worth the effort to take this “detour” through epistemology and methodology? Yes, he concludes, with Ricoeur as the guide and hermeneutics as the central concept. I enjoyed the ride, but it would have been better to have the windscreen wipers turned on. I also wondered why Gardner, who is located in a school of education, does not have anything to say about the implications of hermeneutics for history education. It seems to me that these are twofold. First, they would involve developing students’ understandings of both the latitudes of, and limitations on, interpretation, in dealing with historical traces and, as well, the construction of historical narratives: an education in historical epistemology. Second, they would promote students’ understandings of their own historicity, their embeddedness in historical processes: an education in historical ontology. The latter would require students understanding the “big pictures” of history; both their own agency, and the structural limitations on that agency. Or, in Gardner’s (p. 62) words, “the enduring complexities which attend our best attempts to understand ourselves in time, and time in ourselves”.

Unfolding through communication

He treats memory, here, largely as an individual, psychological phenomenon, but that does not prevent him from slipping into discussion of writers such as Pierre Nora and Maurice Halwachs who consider memory within cultural and social frameworks. At times, Gardner conflates memory and oral history (p. 90), leading him to slide from a discussion of memory to problems of transcription (pp. 92–93). But memory is not the same as oral history. The use of living people’s testimony as a source is a technique for doing history, subject to methodological considerations analogous to using other kinds of sources, each posing distinctive problems. At other times, Gardner treats “memory” exclusively (but only implicitly) as the memory of someone being interviewed by an oral historian (e.g. p. 112). The chapter thus confuses oral history, memory and testimony. And still, there are felicitous pearls of insight to be found: “If history deprecates memory, it lays waste to its wellspring. If memory ignores history, it squanders its credibility” (p. 115). In conclusion Gardner asks his historian readers, was it worth the effort to take this “detour” through epistemology and methodology? Yes, he concludes, with Ricoeur as the guide and hermeneutics as the central concept. I enjoyed the ride, but it would have been better to have the windscreen wipers turned on. I also wondered why Gardner, who is located in a school of education, does not have anything to say about the implications of hermeneutics for history education. It seems to me that these are twofold. First, they would involve developing students’ understandings of both the latitudes of, and limitations on, interpretation, in dealing with historical traces and, as well, the construction of historical narratives: an education in historical epistemology. Second, they would promote students’ understandings of their own historicity, their embeddedness in historical processes: an education in historical ontology. The latter would require students understanding the “big pictures” of history; both their own agency, and the structural limitations on that agency. Or, in Gardner’s (p. 62) words, “the enduring complexities which attend our best attempts to understand ourselves in time, and time in ourselves”.

Unfolding through communication : History of education for deaf and hearing-impaired people in the Netherlands

He treats memory, here, largely as an individual, psychological phenomenon, but that does not prevent him from slipping into discussion of writers such as Pierre Nora and Maurice Halwachs who consider memory within cultural and social frameworks. At times, Gardner conflates memory and oral history (p. 90), leading him to slide from a discussion of memory to problems of transcription (pp. 92–93). But memory is not the same as oral history. The use of living people’s testimony as a source is a technique for doing history, subject to methodological considerations analogous to using other kinds of sources, each posing distinctive problems. At other times, Gardner treats “memory” exclusively (but only implicitly) as the memory of someone being interviewed by an oral historian (e.g. p. 112). The chapter thus confuses oral history, memory and testimony. And still, there are felicitous pearls of insight to be found: “If history deprecates memory, it lays waste to its wellspring. If memory ignores history, it squanders its credibility” (p. 115). In conclusion Gardner asks his historian readers, was it worth the effort to take this “detour” through epistemology and methodology? Yes, he concludes, with Ricoeur as the guide and hermeneutics as the central concept. I enjoyed the ride, but it would have been better to have the windscreen wipers turned on. I also wondered why Gardner, who is located in a school of education, does not have anything to say about the implications of hermeneutics for history education. It seems to me that these are twofold. First, they would involve developing students’ understandings of both the latitudes of, and limitations on, interpretation, in dealing with historical traces and, as well, the construction of historical narratives: an education in historical epistemology. Second, they would promote students’ understandings of their own historicity, their embeddedness in historical processes: an education in historical ontology. The latter would require students understanding the “big pictures” of history; both their own agency, and the structural limitations on that agency. Or, in Gardner’s (p. 62) words, “the enduring complexities which attend our best attempts to understand ourselves in time, and time in ourselves”.