Gal Kaldes, Karyn Higgs, Jodi Lampi, Alecia Santuzzi, Stephen M. Tonks, Tenaha O’Reilly, John P. Sabatini, Joseph P. Magliano
{"title":"Testing the model of a proficient academic reader (PAR) in a postsecondary context","authors":"Gal Kaldes, Karyn Higgs, Jodi Lampi, Alecia Santuzzi, Stephen M. Tonks, Tenaha O’Reilly, John P. Sabatini, Joseph P. Magliano","doi":"10.1007/s11145-023-10500-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The current research used the Proficient Academic Reader (PAR) framework to explore whether reading strategies, task awareness, and motivation predicted college students’ literacy skills over and above foundational skills (e.g., decoding, vocabulary). Specifically, the current research investigated the unique contribution of the PAR constructs to literacy performance across two studies with two different samples of college students. In study one, college students completed assessments of bridging and elaborative reading strategies, task awareness, motivation (intrinsic motivation and competence beliefs), foundational skills, and literacy performance at the beginning of the semester. In study two, college students completed the same assessments at the beginning and end of a reading study and strategies course. Across both studies, students’ task awareness and motivation were significantly predictive of their literacy performance over and above foundational skills. Results from study one indicated that elaborative reading strategies uniquely predicted college students’ literacy performance. Results from study two indicated that elaborative strategies did not predict literacy performance at time one, however, they predicted literacy performance at time two. Exploratory analyses showed that the relation of motivation to literacy performance was moderated by students’ enrollment in developmental education courses. Additionally, motivation, elaborative reading strategies, and task awareness partially mediated the relation of foundational skills to literacy performance, suggesting modifications to the original PAR model. These findings support using the PAR framework to understand college reading readiness. Additional randomized controlled trial intervention studies are warranted to explore if factors of the PAR framework are malleable to classroom instruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10500-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The current research used the Proficient Academic Reader (PAR) framework to explore whether reading strategies, task awareness, and motivation predicted college students’ literacy skills over and above foundational skills (e.g., decoding, vocabulary). Specifically, the current research investigated the unique contribution of the PAR constructs to literacy performance across two studies with two different samples of college students. In study one, college students completed assessments of bridging and elaborative reading strategies, task awareness, motivation (intrinsic motivation and competence beliefs), foundational skills, and literacy performance at the beginning of the semester. In study two, college students completed the same assessments at the beginning and end of a reading study and strategies course. Across both studies, students’ task awareness and motivation were significantly predictive of their literacy performance over and above foundational skills. Results from study one indicated that elaborative reading strategies uniquely predicted college students’ literacy performance. Results from study two indicated that elaborative strategies did not predict literacy performance at time one, however, they predicted literacy performance at time two. Exploratory analyses showed that the relation of motivation to literacy performance was moderated by students’ enrollment in developmental education courses. Additionally, motivation, elaborative reading strategies, and task awareness partially mediated the relation of foundational skills to literacy performance, suggesting modifications to the original PAR model. These findings support using the PAR framework to understand college reading readiness. Additional randomized controlled trial intervention studies are warranted to explore if factors of the PAR framework are malleable to classroom instruction.
目前的研究使用 "熟练学术阅读"(PAR)框架来探讨阅读策略、任务意识和动机是否能预测大学生的读写技能,而不是基础技能(如解码、词汇)。具体来说,目前的研究通过两项针对两个不同大学生样本的研究,调查了 PAR 构建对识字成绩的独特贡献。在研究一中,大学生在学期开始时完成了对桥接和精细化阅读策略、任务意识、动机(内在动机和能力信念)、基础技能和识字成绩的评估。在研究二中,大学生在阅读学习和策略课程开始和结束时完成了同样的评估。在这两项研究中,学生的任务意识和动机对其读写成绩的预测作用明显高于基础技能。研究一的结果表明,精心设计的阅读策略对大学生的读写成绩有独特的预测作用。研究二的结果表明,精心设计的策略并不能预测第一阶段的识字成绩,但却能预测第二阶段的识字成绩。探索性分析表明,学习动机与识字成绩之间的关系受学生是否参加发展教育课程的影响。此外,动机、精心设计的阅读策略和任务意识在一定程度上调节了基础技能与识字成绩的关系,这表明对最初的 PAR 模型进行了修改。这些研究结果支持使用 PAR 框架来了解大学阅读准备情况。我们有必要进行更多的随机对照试验干预研究,以探索 PAR 框架中的因素是否可用于课堂教学。
期刊介绍:
Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.