Journal of Learning Disabilities最新文献

Developmental dyscalculia (DD) is a mathematics learning disorder that affects approximately 5% to 7% of the population. This study aimed to detect the underlying domain-specific and domain-general differences between DD and typically developing (TD) children. We recruited 9-year-old primary school children to form the DD group via a 2-year longitudinal screening process. In total, 75 DD children were screened from 1,657 children after the one-time screening, and 13 DD children were screened from 1,317 children through a consecutive 2-year longitudinal screening. In total, 13 experimental tasks were administered to assess their cognitive abilities to test the domain-specific magnitude representation hypothesis (including symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude comparisons) and four alternative domain-general hypotheses (including working memory, executive function, attention, and visuospatial processing). The DD group had worse performance than the TD group on the number sense task, finger sense task, shifting task, and one-back task after both one-time and two-time screening. Logistic regressions further indicated the differences on the shifting task and the nonsymbolic magnitude comparison task could distinguish DD and TD children. Our findings suggest that domain-specific nonsymbolic magnitude representation and domain-general executive function both contribute to DD. Thus, both domain-specific and domain-general abilities will be necessary to investigate and to intervene in DD groups in the future.

As digital technology use increases in K-12 education, greater numbers of strategies become available to support students in mathematics. One technology that provides students diverse representations of mathematical concepts is virtual manipulatives. Although instruction featuring representations with physical manipulatives possesses a large body of research, the virtual form lacks comparable study, particularly with young children experiencing mathematics difficulty or identified with a mathematics learning disability. These students often demonstrate challenges learning integral skills such as fractions that subsequently affect their academic success in future years. This study examined the use of virtual manipulatives paired with explicit instruction and a system of least prompts for teaching computations with fractions to three elementary students with mathematics difficulty. A functional relation was found using a single-subject multiple probe design between the treatment condition and students' accuracy performance solving problems. These results and their implications for the field at-large are discussed.

Teacher preparation for problem-solving instruction is essential to meeting the math needs of English learners (ELs) with math learning disabilities (MLD) in U.S. public schools. In investigating this instruction with Hispanic ELs with MLD, this study focused on how professional development supported one special educator's implementation of effective practices for both academic language and problem-solving instruction. The professional development prepared the teacher for instructional and cooperative learning phases that faded prompting as students achieved independence in applying the problem-solving strategy. A multiple-baseline design was used to assess nine third-grade Hispanic ELs with MLD. As compared with the baseline phase, instructional scaffolding increased word problem solving for all the participants. All students' level of probe performance was maintained during follow-up sessions. The results suggest the intervention facilitated improved math problem-solving performance.

High-quality Tier 1 instruction is frequently conceptualized as the "foundation" for other tiers of intervention within multitiered systems of support (MTSS) models. However, the vast majority of Tier 2 intervention studies do not account for Tier 1 variables when examining intervention effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to examine Tier 1 predictors, or "quality indicators," of differential responsiveness to Tier 2 mathematics intervention. Data were drawn from a large-scale data set where all teachers taught the Early Learning in Mathematics (Tier 1) core program across the academic year, and a subset of students were selected for the ROOTS (Tier 2) mathematics intervention. We examined the following Tier 1 variables: (a) classroom-level mathematics gains, (b) Tier 1 fidelity of implementation, (c) Tier 1 classroom management and instructional support, and (d) class size. Response to Tier 2 intervention was not significantly predicted by any of the Tier 1 variables examined; however, the pattern of Hedges' g effect sizes suggested that students with higher quality of Tier 1 instruction tended to benefit less from the Tier 2 ROOTS intervention. Results are discussed in the context of implications for research and practice.

Analyses were conducted with second graders, drawn from an ongoing multi-cohort randomized controlled trial (RCT), who had been identified for RCT entry based on comorbid reading comprehension and word-problem solving difficulty. To estimate pandemic learning loss, we contrasted fall performance for 3 cohorts: fall of 2019 (pre-pandemic; n = 47), 2020 (early pandemic, when performance was affected by the truncated preceding school year; n = 35), and 2021 (later pandemic, when performance was affected by the truncated 2019 to 2020 school year plus the subsequent year's ongoing interruptions; n = 75). Across the 2 years, declines (standard deviations below expected growth) were approximately 3 times larger than those reported for the general population and for students in high-poverty schools. To estimate the promise of structured remote intervention for addressing such learning loss during extended school closures, we contrasted effects in the RCT's 2018 to 2019 cohort (entirely in-person intervention delivery; n = 66) against the same intervention's effects in the 2020 to 2021 cohort (alternating periods of remote and in-person delivery; n = 29). Large intervention effects were not moderated by pandemic status, suggesting potential for structured remote intervention to address student needs during extended school closures.

Preschool-age children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties can benefit from supplemental, small-group emergent literacy intervention. As such interventions become commercially available and marketed to preschool programs, it is important to understand their impacts when implemented by intended end users under routine conditions. In this study, we examined the effects of the Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) intervention on children's emergent literacy skills when implemented by teachers and community aides in authentic preschool classrooms. We randomly assigned 98 classrooms to one of three conditions (NBS! teacher-implemented, NBS! community aide-implemented, or control). Children enrolled in these classrooms who met eligibility criteria and were identified as at risk via an early literacy screener (n = 281) completed pretest and posttest emergent literacy assessments; those assigned to NBS! conditions received intervention from their classroom teacher or a community aide affiliated with a local kindergarten-readiness initiative. Intent-to-treat analyses showed no significant impacts of NBS! on any outcome, and an instrumental variable, as-treated approach showed one significant intervention effect on letter writing. Consequently, we did not replicate results of prior highly controlled efficacy trials. Findings have implications for revising the NBS! theory of change, conducting dosage and as-treated analyses, and moving research-based interventions toward scale-up.

Students with disabilities (SWD) who are Black or Hispanic have been reported to be more likely to be placed primarily outside of general education classrooms while attending U.S. schools. Federal law and regulation require monitoring of special education placement based on race or ethnicity. Yet, whether and to what extent racial or ethnic disparities in placement are explained by bias or by other explanatory factors is currently unclear. We evaluated for racial and ethnic bias in special education placement by analyzing longitudinal data from two independent samples of SWD (N values range 590-1,130) attending U.S. elementary schools. We statistically controlled for plausibly exogenous sociodemographic, academic, and behavioral risk factors measured in kindergarten in analyses of the students as they attended first, third, and fifth grades between the 1999-2000 and 2015-2016 school years. Of the resulting 12 Black or Hispanic grade-year-specific tests, 11 (i.e., 92%) indicated that controls for kindergarten explanatory factors-particularly significant academic difficulties-fully explained the risk initially attributable to race or ethnicity. We observed little evidence that bias explains racial or ethnic disparities in special education placement in U.S. elementary schools.

Seventy-six general education and 67 special education teachers working in the same 66 elementary schools were surveyed about their beliefs about writing. Each teacher taught writing to one or more fourth-grade students receiving special education services, including students with learning disabilities. Survey findings indicated that general education teachers believed that they were better prepared to teach writing than special education teachers, and they were more positive about their own efforts to learn to teach writing. General education teachers also held more positive attitudes about teaching writing and their own capabilities as a writer than their special education counterparts. Furthermore, general educators were more likely than special educators to indicate that writing developed through effort and process, and less likely to think that writing knowledge came from experts. Beliefs about adequacy of preparation to teach writing predicted teachers' beliefs about their level of knowledge to teach writing, efficacy to overcome students' writing difficulties, and attitudes toward teaching writing. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are presented.

Exposure to stigma and stereotype threat is detrimental for numerous marginalized groups. Research has demonstrated that individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) are vulnerable to stigmatization. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the studies investigating associations between SLD-related stigma and stereotype threat and psychological and academic outcomes in individuals with SLDs, as well as examine the overall effect size of these associations across studies. A total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria-12 studies (52 effect sizes) examined SLD stigma with psychological adjustment or academic outcomes, and six studies (eight effect sizes) examined SLD stereotype threat. Greater SLD stigma scores had a medium-sized and significant correlation with less self-esteem across nine effect sizes (r = -.39, p = .002). Other outcomes were not powered enough for meta-analyses, although studies generally showed that greater SLD stigma and stereotype threat was related to less optimal psychological adjustment. These results suggest that these negative experiences should be a target of intervention and support efforts for individuals with SLDs. The associations between SLD stigma and stereotype threat and academic performance outcomes were comparatively more heterogeneous and less robust. These findings highlight the need for more research on SLD-related stigma and stereotype threat.