A Contextualized Intervention for Community College Developmental Reading and Writing Students. CCRC Working Paper No. 38.

D. Perin, R. H. Bork, Stephen T. Peverly, L. Mason, Megan Vaselewski
{"title":"A Contextualized Intervention for Community College Developmental Reading and Writing Students. CCRC Working Paper No. 38.","authors":"D. Perin, R. H. Bork, Stephen T. Peverly, L. Mason, Megan Vaselewski","doi":"10.7916/D82N59D6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Instructors in community college developmental education programs are constantly seeking new ways to improve outcomes for their students, but, to date, there has been a shortage of empirical studies on the effectiveness of such efforts. The current study provides evidence on the potential efficacy of an approach to helping students develop an important academic skill, written summarization. In two experiments, a contextualized intervention was administered to developmental reading and writing students in two community colleges. The intervention was a 10-week curricular supplement that emphasized written summarization, as well as vocabulary knowledge, question generation, reading comprehension, and persuasive writing. The intervention was based on reading passages from science textbooks, with generic text from developmental education textbooks added in the second experiment. In Experiment 1 (n = 322), greater gain was found for intervention than for comparison participants along three dimensions of written summarization: the proportion of main ideas from the source text included in the summary, accuracy, and word count (ES = 0.26–0.42). Experiment 2 (n = 246) set out to replicate and extend Experiment 1. Results were replicated for three of five summarization measures (ES = 0.36–0.70), but it was also found that intervention participants showed higher amounts of copying from the source text at posttest than the comparison group. In extending the intervention to a different text condition, it was found that students receiving science text outperformed students receiving generic text on the inclusion of main ideas, as well as on accuracy (ES = 0.32–0.33), providing moderate support for contextualization. Although summarization gains did not transfer to a standardized reading comprehension test in either experiment, the findings of this study suggest that the intervention had utility for academically underprepared postsecondary students.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D82N59D6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Instructors in community college developmental education programs are constantly seeking new ways to improve outcomes for their students, but, to date, there has been a shortage of empirical studies on the effectiveness of such efforts. The current study provides evidence on the potential efficacy of an approach to helping students develop an important academic skill, written summarization. In two experiments, a contextualized intervention was administered to developmental reading and writing students in two community colleges. The intervention was a 10-week curricular supplement that emphasized written summarization, as well as vocabulary knowledge, question generation, reading comprehension, and persuasive writing. The intervention was based on reading passages from science textbooks, with generic text from developmental education textbooks added in the second experiment. In Experiment 1 (n = 322), greater gain was found for intervention than for comparison participants along three dimensions of written summarization: the proportion of main ideas from the source text included in the summary, accuracy, and word count (ES = 0.26–0.42). Experiment 2 (n = 246) set out to replicate and extend Experiment 1. Results were replicated for three of five summarization measures (ES = 0.36–0.70), but it was also found that intervention participants showed higher amounts of copying from the source text at posttest than the comparison group. In extending the intervention to a different text condition, it was found that students receiving science text outperformed students receiving generic text on the inclusion of main ideas, as well as on accuracy (ES = 0.32–0.33), providing moderate support for contextualization. Although summarization gains did not transfer to a standardized reading comprehension test in either experiment, the findings of this study suggest that the intervention had utility for academically underprepared postsecondary students.
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
社区大学发展性读写学生的情境化干预。CCRC第38号工作文件
社区大学发展教育项目的教师不断寻求新的方法来提高学生的成绩,但是,到目前为止,缺乏对这种努力的有效性的实证研究。目前的研究为帮助学生培养一项重要的学术技能——书面总结——的潜在功效提供了证据。在两个实验中,对两所社区大学的发展性阅读和写作学生进行了情境化干预。干预是一个为期10周的课程补充,强调书面总结,词汇知识,问题生成,阅读理解和有说服力的写作。干预是基于阅读科学教科书中的段落,在第二个实验中加入了发展教育教科书中的一般文本。在实验1 (n = 322)中,在书面摘要的三个维度上,干预组比对照组获得了更大的收益:摘要中包含的源文本主要思想的比例、准确性和字数(ES = 0.26-0.42)。实验2 (n = 246)开始复制和扩展实验1。结果在五种总结方法中有三种是重复的(ES = 0.36-0.70),但也发现干预组的参与者在后测时比对照组对源文本的复制量更高。在将干预扩展到不同的文本条件下,我们发现接受科学文本的学生在主要思想的包含和准确性方面优于接受普通文本的学生(ES = 0.32-0.33),为情境化提供了适度的支持。虽然在两个实验中,总结的收获都没有转移到标准化的阅读理解测试中,但本研究的结果表明,干预对学业准备不足的高等教育学生是有用的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Redefining Full-Time in College: Evidence on 15-Credit Strategies A Growing Culture of Evidence? Findings From a Survey on Data Use at Achieving the Dream Colleges in Washington State Characterizing the Effectiveness of Developmental Education: A Response to Recent Criticism Acceleration Through a Holistic Support Model: An Implementation and Outcomes Analysis of FastStart@CCD Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas. CCRC Working Paper No. 54.
×
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