|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-11-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Evidence; Therapy; Anxiety Disorders; Pain; Anxiety; Foreign Countries; Values Clarification; Medical Research; Cognitive Restructuring; Behavior Modification; Metacognition; Guidelines; Outcomes of Treatment; Comparative Analysis
Abstract:
Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is a transdiagnostic cognitive behavioural therapy that predominantly teaches clients acceptance and mindfulness skills, as well as values clarification and enactment skills. Australian treatment guideline providers have been cautious in recognising ACT as empirically supported. This article reviews evidence from randomised controlled trials published since Ost's review, and examines the extent to which the methodology of ACT research has improved since. Since 2008, ACT research has improved its use of adherence and competence monitoring. Good-quality studies could be considered to offer National Health and Medical Research Council Level II evidence for chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a subset of other anxiety disorders (panic disorder, social phobia, and generalised anxiety disorder). The majority of studies demonstrated that ACT significantly improved primary outcomes but used comparison conditions that did not rule out therapy-unspecific factors, including use of concurrent treatments, as explanations for the improvements. Recommendations for future ACT research are presented. (Contains 2 tables and 1 footnote.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Aslanargun, Engin |
Source: |
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, v12 n2 p1339-1344 Spr 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
School Administration; Principals; Qualitative Research; Interviews; Focus Groups; Values; Values Clarification; Administrator Attitudes; Administrative Principles; Phenomenology; Foreign Countries; Administrative Policy; Leadership Qualities; Leadership Responsibility
Abstract:
School administration is value driven area depending on the emotions, cultures, and human values as well as technique and structure. Over the long years, educational administration throughout the world have experienced the influence of logical positivism that is based on rational techniques more than philosophical consideration, ignored values and emotions in organisations for the sake of rational problem solving, effectiveness, and strategic planning. However schools are value driven organisations that aim to train the young so as to perform social responsibility in society. Principals are not only charged with legal and professional duties but they also respond to social expectations in a manner of morality. The purpose of this study was to investigate the values that principals should have in administration. The data were obtained via focus group interviews of 19 principals under three sub-groups with qualitative research design in the town of Akcakoca, Duzce and analyzed with the inductive content analysis. The views of principals were generally shaped by Ministry of Education's exam based legislation; furthermore, the concepts of justice, confidence, diligence, career, merit were also voiced despite lack of full and common description. (Contains 1 footnote.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (534K)
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Author(s): |
McCowan, Tristan |
Source: |
Cambridge Journal of Education, v42 n1 p67-81 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Civil Rights; Learning Processes; Access to Education; Equal Education; Civil Rights Legislation; Educational Legislation; Childrens Rights; Discourse Analysis; Social Attitudes; Social Change; Educational Practices; Social Values; Values Clarification
Abstract:
While respect for human rights has long been endorsed as a goal of education, only recently has significant attention been paid to the need to incorporate rights within educational processes. Current support for human rights within education, however, has a variety of motivations. This paper provides a theoretical exploration of these diverse justifications, leading to a normative proposal. A distinction is made between status-based and instrumental approaches. Human rights within education can be justified from a status-based perspective on the basis of their indivisibility, meaning that the right to education must not entail an infringement of other rights. Yet while rights-respecting environments are important sites of learning, instrumental justifications can be a source of concern, if the goals in question are irrelevant or inimical to the enhancement of rights. An argument, therefore, is put forward for a simultaneous realisation of embodiment of and opportunity for learning about human rights. (Contains 2 notes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Hung, Ruyu |
Source: |
Cambridge Journal of Education, v42 n1 p37-51 2012 |
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Citizenship; Citizenship Education; Civil Rights; Social Integration; Political Attitudes; Social Attitudes; Fused Curriculum; Relevance (Education); Curriculum Evaluation; Values Clarification; Values Education; Educational Objectives; Educational Practices
Abstract:
This paper argues against a trend of human rights education, where human rights are taught in the form of citizenship education. In my view, citizenship education and human rights education cannot be taken as replaceable for each other. Underpinning the idea of citizenship is a distinction between "politically qualified" and "politically unqualified" persons. This distinction implies a violation of human rights in the name of social solidarity and security. This paper will argue that citizenship education could imply discrimination/exclusion although it claims to promote solidarity and human rights. Furthermore, the qualification of having rights is not dependent on citizenship but simply in human life itself. Three educational implications are discussed. Firstly, human rights and citizenship education cannot be seen as equivalents. Secondly, educators should be alert to the dangers of possible exclusion implied in citizenship education. Finally, this paper proposes different suggestions for human rights and citizenship education separately.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|