Learning Disabilities Research & Practice最新文献

The purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of learning disabilities (LD), mathematics LD (MLD), and mathematics difficulty (MD). Using rigorous inclusion criteria, we evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, few students with LD or MLD were included, and the authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word-problem solving, fractions, computer-assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies was reported. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses included achievement outcomes, but very few reported on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledgebase on mathematics interventions.

Word-problem features such as text complexity, charts and graphs, position of the unknown, calculation complexity, irrelevant information, and schemas impact word-problem performance. We compared the word-problem performance of typically achieving (TA) students and students with mathematics difficulty (MD). First, we measured the word-problem performance of all students for schemas and position of the unknown, followed by the performance of students with MD for schemas, position of the unknown, irrelevant information, and charts or graphs. Across schemas, while TA students outperformed students with MD, all students typically scored higher on Change and Difference problems than on Total problems. For position of the unknown, students often scored highest on problems with the final position unknown. Students with MD also demonstrated higher scores on problems with irrelevant information than charts and graphs. Although patterns emerged, not all problems followed the same trends, suggesting the need for further research to investigate the impact of word-problem features on word-problem accuracy.

This article explains how teams of special educators, science teachers, literacy consultants, and administrators can use the Disciplinary Literacy Observation Tool (DLOT) and accompanying planning tool to improve disciplinary literacy instruction in inclusive secondary science classrooms. The DLOT was developed in partnership with practitioners as a tool for professional development and coaching. First, the tool's development and five dimensions are described: (a) aspects of disciplinary literacy in science, (b) instructional grouping, (c) student engagement, (d) quality of pedagogy, and (e) overall quality. Then, an illustration is provided for how special educators can collaborate with science educators and other colleagues to use the DLOT to identify, document, reflect upon, and set goals regarding disciplinary literacy instruction in science in ways that benefit students with learning disabilities. With the DLOT, practitioners can approach literacy integration in science to address both general and discipline-specific strategies aligned synergistically to Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards through three-dimensional science learning.

This study investigated the learning strategies that university students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) report using in the Chinese language context. Participants were 105 first-year undergraduate students with SLD and 134 typically developing peers. Three questionnaires about reported reading/writing difficulties, metacognitive knowledge, and learning strategies were administered. Students with SLD reported using fewer learning strategies than students without SLD. The use of writing/research skills, which are the skills used to research topics from various sources in different ways (e.g., organizing writing projects, and monitoring for errors), significantly negatively predicted the reported reading/writing difficulties in both groups. These findings help expand our understanding of which learning strategies are useful for students with SLD and university instructors use more suitable techniques to facilitate the learning of these students.

Qualitative research methods are used within special education research to provide insights about how and why phenomena occur. They can, however, be misunderstood and applied inappropriately. Our aim in this article is to provide an overview of qualitative methods, including their purpose, contributions to research involving students with learning disabilities, limitations, and quality indicators for methodological rigor. Additionally, we highlight common qualitative methods and data sources. We review a recent study that exemplifies the use of qualitative methods in the field. Our take-home message is that qualitative methods can provide valuable in-depth information about how and why phenomena occur, but they are not intended to support causal relationships or large-scale generalizability.

In this synthesis, we examined and assessed the impact of self-regulated instructional components on the motivation of students with or at risk for learning disabilities (LD) in reading, writing, or mathematics intervention studies. Elements such as goal setting, self-monitoring for task completion, self-monitoring for emotions, self-talk for task completion, self-talk for emotions, and self-talk for progress monitoring were identified as relevant constructs, and were further examined to determine their effect on students’ motivation for learning and academic functioning. Results indicated major differences in the application of these self-regulated instructional components across academic domains. Quantitative analyses also revealed that interventions with self-regulated instructional components resulted in positive effects on motivation measures such as self-efficacy, self-esteem, attributions, value for task, affect, expectancy for success, and intrinsic motivation. Finally, our findings have practical implications for struggling learners, as goal setting and self-talk, for task completion or for progress monitoring, seem especially likely to improve the likelihood that struggling learners will demonstrate positive gains in motivation.