对拼写教学和干预的实施和有效性进行系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Psychology in the Schools Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.1002/pits.23223
Shawna Petersen‐Brown, Kourtney R. Kromminga
{"title":"对拼写教学和干预的实施和有效性进行系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Shawna Petersen‐Brown, Kourtney R. Kromminga","doi":"10.1002/pits.23223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is important for students to develop spelling skills, and spelling skills have been found to benefit the development of reading and writing skills. Past reviews and meta‐analyses supported the effectiveness of spelling instruction at improving a variety of academic outcomes including spelling, reading, and writing. This review and meta‐analysis contributes to this research and extends the current research on the impact of implementation characteristics on effectiveness. This review and meta‐analysis included 81 studies (43 group design and 38 single‐case design [SCD]). The meta‐analysis indicated an average effect of spelling instruction and intervention that was small in the group design research (<jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.319) and moderate in the SCD research (Tau‐<jats:italic>U</jats:italic> = 0.578). Implementation and methodological characteristics were described, and the nature of the comparison conditions and dependent variable were identified as potential moderators. A significant sample of research represented a range of participant samples, implementation characteristics, instructional practices, and methodological attributes. These results suggest that experimental spelling approaches are generally a modest improvement on existing approaches and that little research has investigated the effectiveness of some best practices, including practices that support individualization of spelling instruction.","PeriodicalId":48182,"journal":{"name":"Psychology in the Schools","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of spelling instruction and intervention\",\"authors\":\"Shawna Petersen‐Brown, Kourtney R. Kromminga\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pits.23223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is important for students to develop spelling skills, and spelling skills have been found to benefit the development of reading and writing skills. Past reviews and meta‐analyses supported the effectiveness of spelling instruction at improving a variety of academic outcomes including spelling, reading, and writing. This review and meta‐analysis contributes to this research and extends the current research on the impact of implementation characteristics on effectiveness. This review and meta‐analysis included 81 studies (43 group design and 38 single‐case design [SCD]). The meta‐analysis indicated an average effect of spelling instruction and intervention that was small in the group design research (<jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.319) and moderate in the SCD research (Tau‐<jats:italic>U</jats:italic> = 0.578). Implementation and methodological characteristics were described, and the nature of the comparison conditions and dependent variable were identified as potential moderators. A significant sample of research represented a range of participant samples, implementation characteristics, instructional practices, and methodological attributes. These results suggest that experimental spelling approaches are generally a modest improvement on existing approaches and that little research has investigated the effectiveness of some best practices, including practices that support individualization of spelling instruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology in the Schools\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology in the Schools\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23223\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology in the Schools","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23223","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

培养学生的拼写技能非常重要,而且拼写技能被认为有利于阅读和写作技能的发展。过去的综述和荟萃分析支持拼写教学在提高包括拼写、阅读和写作在内的各种学习成绩方面的有效性。本综述和荟萃分析为这项研究做出了贡献,并扩展了当前关于实施特点对有效性影响的研究。本综述和荟萃分析包括 81 项研究(43 项小组设计和 38 项单例设计 [SCD])。荟萃分析表明,在小组设计研究中,拼写教学和干预的平均效果较小(g = 0.319),在单例设计研究中,拼写教学和干预的平均效果中等(Tau-U = 0.578)。对实施和方法特点进行了描述,并将比较条件和因变量的性质确定为潜在的调节因素。重要的研究样本代表了一系列参与者样本、实施特征、教学实践和方法属性。这些结果表明,实验性拼写教学法一般都是对现有教学法的适度改进,而对一些最佳教学法(包括支持拼写教学个性化的教学法)的有效性研究很少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of spelling instruction and intervention
It is important for students to develop spelling skills, and spelling skills have been found to benefit the development of reading and writing skills. Past reviews and meta‐analyses supported the effectiveness of spelling instruction at improving a variety of academic outcomes including spelling, reading, and writing. This review and meta‐analysis contributes to this research and extends the current research on the impact of implementation characteristics on effectiveness. This review and meta‐analysis included 81 studies (43 group design and 38 single‐case design [SCD]). The meta‐analysis indicated an average effect of spelling instruction and intervention that was small in the group design research (g = 0.319) and moderate in the SCD research (Tau‐U = 0.578). Implementation and methodological characteristics were described, and the nature of the comparison conditions and dependent variable were identified as potential moderators. A significant sample of research represented a range of participant samples, implementation characteristics, instructional practices, and methodological attributes. These results suggest that experimental spelling approaches are generally a modest improvement on existing approaches and that little research has investigated the effectiveness of some best practices, including practices that support individualization of spelling instruction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology in the Schools
Psychology in the Schools PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
200
期刊介绍: Psychology in the Schools, which is published eight times per year, is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to research, opinion, and practice. The journal welcomes theoretical and applied manuscripts, focusing on the issues confronting school psychologists, teachers, counselors, administrators, and other personnel workers in schools and colleges, public and private organizations. Preferences will be given to manuscripts that clearly describe implications for the practitioner in the schools.
期刊最新文献
The development of sources of self‐efficacy in self‐regulation during one primary school year: the role of gender, special educational needs, and individual strengths Mastery performance‐goal orientation objective test: goal orientation profiles Unpacking the differences in social impact and social preference among Spanish preschool aggressors, victims, aggressor‐victims, and defenders whilst controlling for emotional competences Developing and validating perceived intercultural communication anxiety/apprehension scale Family communication and bi‐dimensional student mental health in adolescents: A serial mediation through digital game addiction and school belongingness
×
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