Journal of Learning Disabilities最新文献

In the current study, we tested a network model of reading difficulty by using state-of-the-art psychological network analysis. Four hundred and fifty-three Chinese first-grade children (about 38% female, mean age = 7.00, SD = 0.41) were divided into good (n = 154), competent (n = 147), and struggling (n = 152) readers based on their scores of Chinese character reading. The Extended Bayesian Information Criterion graphical lasso (EBICglasso) method was applied to estimate cross-sectional networks for the three groups. Each network included four cognitive nodes (homophone awareness, morphological structure awareness, phonological awareness, and vocabulary) and two ecological nodes (family socioeconomic status and the number of books at home). Chronological age and nonverbal intelligence were also included in the estimated networks. The global (i.e., global structure and global connectivity) and local patterns (i.e., the most important edges and nodes) in each network were reported. The network comparison results showed that global connectivity was significantly lower among struggling readers than for good readers, implying that a holistic impairment of bidirectional connections among multiple variables relates to the difficulty in learning to read. The theoretical and empirical implications and the significance of applying the network approach to reading research are discussed.

For decades, there have been competing visions of how and where to educate students with disabilities (SWDs) in America's K-12 schools. One conception is that general classrooms can accommodate the learning needs of virtually all children. A second approach calls for multiple placement options. Over the years, the context in which this disagreement has played out has changed as educators have shifted from a reliance on special classes to trust in general classes to enthusiasm for intensive instruction beyond the general class. Such variation in practice has influenced how researchers have explored relations between SWDs' placement and their academic performance. Some of this research has been weak, producing unreliable findings. Some has generated more trustworthy results. All stakeholders would benefit from distinguishing the weaker studies from the stronger ones. Yet, to date, there has been an absence of such effort. In this paper, we provide a concise history of placement-achievement research and then review evidence spanning 50 years, bearing on how and where to educate SWDs. We conclude that the research on where to teach has generally been weak and inconclusive; the research on how to teach, stronger and more certain. Implications for educating SWDs are discussed.

Educators need supportive working conditions to fulfill their responsibilities to students, families, and colleagues. Given the crucial role of working conditions in teacher effectiveness, we sought to understand educators' (including general educators, paraeducators, specaial educators, and principals) perspectives about their working conditions as they included students with disabilities. We analyzed 28 primarily qualitative studies, conducted between 1998 and 2023, using Conservation of Resources (COR) theory as a framework to study their working conditions. We analyzed their responsibilities in inclusive schools (e.g., instruction, collaboration), and the resources that were provided or needed to fulfill those responsibilities (e.g., time, professional development). We found inclusion often required substantial responsibilities for educators; however, they often lacked needed resources, leaving them feeling stretched thin as they tried to meet students' needs. These findings have implications for supporting educators in inclusive schools.

In a multiyear, multisite, randomized control trial, we examined the effects of comprehensive professional development designed to support teachers' data-based instruction (DBI) for students with intensive early writing needs. Teachers (N = 154; primarily special educators or intervention specialists) were assigned randomly to a treatment group (n = 76), in which they received tools, learning, and coaching to support their DBI implementation over 20 weeks, or to a control group (n = 78). Students either received DBI in early writing (n = 155) from treatment teachers or their usual writing instruction (n = 154) from control teachers. Treatment teachers outperformed controls on measures of DBI knowledge and skills (d = 1.57) and self-efficacy for writing instruction (d = .94), and treatment students outperformed controls on proximal and distal writing outcomes (ds = .14-.29). Student characteristics (grade, special education status, English learner status, and race/ethnicity) did not moderate intervention effects. We discuss findings in terms of the importance of supporting students with intensive learning needs, the efficacy and feasibility of implementing DBI-TLC, and implications for pre- and in-service teacher training and support.