Exploring Thresholds in the Foundational Skills for Reading and Comprehension Outcomes in the Context of Postsecondary Readers.

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Learning Disabilities Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/00222194221087387
Joseph P Magliano, Amani Talwar, Daniel P Feller, Zuowei Wang, Tenaha O'Reilly, John Sabatini
{"title":"Exploring Thresholds in the Foundational Skills for Reading and Comprehension Outcomes in the Context of Postsecondary Readers.","authors":"Joseph P Magliano,&nbsp;Amani Talwar,&nbsp;Daniel P Feller,&nbsp;Zuowei Wang,&nbsp;Tenaha O'Reilly,&nbsp;John Sabatini","doi":"10.1177/00222194221087387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a range of reasons why college students may be underprepared to read, but one possibility is that some college students are below a threshold of proficiency in the component skills of reading. The presence of thresholds means that when students fall below that threshold, their proficiency in that component skill of reading is not sufficient for there to be a relationship with comprehension performance. The present study assessed (a) whether there were thresholds in proficiencies in foundational skills, (b) whether students falling below the thresholds were disproportionately in developmental literary programs (i.e., institutionally designated as underprepared), and (c) the implications of being below the thresholds on engaging in strategic processing during reading. College students were administered assessments of foundational literacy skills, text comprehension, and strategic processing of texts. The sample included students who were enrolled in developmental literacy programs and students who were not. Thresholds were found in the foundational skills associated with word-, sentence-, and discourse-level processing. Participants below these thresholds were represented disproportionately by students determined to be underprepared for college and assigned to developmental literacy programs. Finally, students falling below the thresholds demonstrated lower reading strategy scores than students above the threshold.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"56 1","pages":"43-57"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221087387","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

There is a range of reasons why college students may be underprepared to read, but one possibility is that some college students are below a threshold of proficiency in the component skills of reading. The presence of thresholds means that when students fall below that threshold, their proficiency in that component skill of reading is not sufficient for there to be a relationship with comprehension performance. The present study assessed (a) whether there were thresholds in proficiencies in foundational skills, (b) whether students falling below the thresholds were disproportionately in developmental literary programs (i.e., institutionally designated as underprepared), and (c) the implications of being below the thresholds on engaging in strategic processing during reading. College students were administered assessments of foundational literacy skills, text comprehension, and strategic processing of texts. The sample included students who were enrolled in developmental literacy programs and students who were not. Thresholds were found in the foundational skills associated with word-, sentence-, and discourse-level processing. Participants below these thresholds were represented disproportionately by students determined to be underprepared for college and assigned to developmental literacy programs. Finally, students falling below the thresholds demonstrated lower reading strategy scores than students above the threshold.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索高等教育背景下阅读和理解基本技能的阈值。
大学生阅读准备不足的原因有很多,但一种可能是一些大学生在阅读的组成技能方面没有达到熟练程度的门槛。阈值的存在意味着当学生低于该阈值时,他们对该部分阅读技能的熟练程度不足以与理解表现产生关系。本研究评估了(a)是否存在基础技能熟练程度的阈值,(b)低于阈值的学生在发展性文学课程中是否不成比例(即机构指定为准备不足),以及(c)低于阈值的学生在阅读过程中参与策略处理的含义。对大学生进行了基础读写技能、文本理解和文本策略处理的评估。样本包括参加发展性扫盲项目的学生和没有参加的学生。阈值存在于与单词、句子和篇章处理相关的基础技能中。低于这些门槛的参与者中,不成比例的学生被认为对大学准备不足,并被分配到发展扫盲项目。最后,低于阈值的学生比高于阈值的学生表现出更低的阅读策略得分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.
期刊最新文献
Derivational Morphology Training in French-Speaking 9- to 14- Year-Old Children and Adolescents With Developmental Dyslexia: Does It Improve Morphological Awareness, Reading, and Spelling Outcome Measures? Graph Out Loud: Pre-Service Teachers' Data Decisions and Interpretations of CBM Progress Graphs. What Environments Support Reading Growth Among Current Compared With Former Reading Intervention Recipients? A Multilevel Analysis of Students and Their Schools. Ongoing Teacher Support for Data-Based Individualization: A Meta-Analysis and Synthesis. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Clarifying the Relationship Between Free Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1