Proficiency With Number Concepts and Operations: Replicating the Efficacy of a First-Grade Mathematics Intervention.

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Learning Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-28 DOI:10.1177/00222194231209017
Christian T Doabler, Ben Clarke, Jessica E Turtura, Marah Sutherland, Jenna A Gersib, Taylor Lesner, Madison Cook, Georgia L Kimmel, Keith Smolkowski, Derek Kosty
{"title":"Proficiency With Number Concepts and Operations: Replicating the Efficacy of a First-Grade Mathematics Intervention.","authors":"Christian T Doabler, Ben Clarke, Jessica E Turtura, Marah Sutherland, Jenna A Gersib, Taylor Lesner, Madison Cook, Georgia L Kimmel, Keith Smolkowski, Derek Kosty","doi":"10.1177/00222194231209017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conceptual replications are part and parcel of education science. Methodologically rigorous conceptual replication studies permit researchers to test and strengthen the generalizability of a study's initial findings. The current conceptual replication sought to replicate the efficacy of a small-group, first-grade mathematics intervention with 240 first-grade students with mathematics difficulties in a new geographical region. Participating students were randomized into one of three conditions: (a) 2:1 mathematics intervention group, (b) 5:1 mathematics intervention group, or (c) business-as-usual instruction. Relative to the original study, findings from the replication varied. When comparing the treatment groups to the control, results suggested positive effects on all outcome measures, including a follow-up assessment administered one year later. However, differences between the two treatment groups based on group size were not found in the mathematics outcome measures. Both groups also received commensurate levels of observed instructional interactions. Implications for unpacking contextual differences between original research and their replications as well as using future research to explore the quantity and quality of instructional interactions as ways to explain variation in findings of group size are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"224-241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231209017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conceptual replications are part and parcel of education science. Methodologically rigorous conceptual replication studies permit researchers to test and strengthen the generalizability of a study's initial findings. The current conceptual replication sought to replicate the efficacy of a small-group, first-grade mathematics intervention with 240 first-grade students with mathematics difficulties in a new geographical region. Participating students were randomized into one of three conditions: (a) 2:1 mathematics intervention group, (b) 5:1 mathematics intervention group, or (c) business-as-usual instruction. Relative to the original study, findings from the replication varied. When comparing the treatment groups to the control, results suggested positive effects on all outcome measures, including a follow-up assessment administered one year later. However, differences between the two treatment groups based on group size were not found in the mathematics outcome measures. Both groups also received commensurate levels of observed instructional interactions. Implications for unpacking contextual differences between original research and their replications as well as using future research to explore the quantity and quality of instructional interactions as ways to explain variation in findings of group size are discussed.

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
熟练掌握数字概念和运算:再现一年级数学干预的效果。
概念复制是教育科学的重要组成部分。方法上严格的概念复制研究允许研究人员测试和加强研究的初步发现的普遍性。目前的概念复制试图复制一个小群体,一年级数学干预的效果,240名一年级学生在一个新的地理区域有数学困难。参与的学生被随机分为三组:(a) 2:1数学干预组,(b) 5:1数学干预组,或(c)一切照旧的教学。与最初的研究相比,重复研究的结果有所不同。当将治疗组与对照组进行比较时,结果表明对所有结果测量都有积极影响,包括一年后进行的随访评估。然而,在数学结果测量中没有发现基于组大小的两个治疗组之间的差异。两组还接受了相应水平的观察教学互动。本文还讨论了揭示原始研究及其重复研究之间的背景差异的意义,以及利用未来的研究来探索教学互动的数量和质量,作为解释群体规模研究结果变化的方法。
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