针对注意力不集中和阅读困难的四年级学生,在第一级教学的基础上进行第二级阅读理解干预的效果

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of School Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101320
Elizabeth A. Stevens , Alicia Stewart , Sharon Vaughn , Young Ri Lee , Nancy Scammacca , Elizabeth Swanson
{"title":"针对注意力不集中和阅读困难的四年级学生,在第一级教学的基础上进行第二级阅读理解干预的效果","authors":"Elizabeth A. Stevens ,&nbsp;Alicia Stewart ,&nbsp;Sharon Vaughn ,&nbsp;Young Ri Lee ,&nbsp;Nancy Scammacca ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Swanson","doi":"10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study reports a secondary analysis from a quasi-experimental design study (<em>N</em> = 13 schools) to examine the effects of aligned Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) instruction for a subsample of fourth graders with inattention and reading difficulties. Of this sample (<em>N</em> = 63 students), 100% received free- or reduced-price lunch, 92% identified as Hispanic, and 22% received special education services. T1 instruction focused on implementing practices to support reading comprehension and content learning during social studies instruction. The aligned T2 intervention focused on remediating reading comprehension difficulties using the same evidence-based practices implemented in T1, thus supporting students with connecting learning and applying skills across settings. Schools were assigned to one of three conditions: (a) aligned T1-T2 instruction; (b) nonaligned T1-T2 instruction, in which T1 and T2 practices were not intentionally aligned; or (c) business-as-usual (BaU) T1 and T2 practices. No significant differences were detected between the nonaligned T1-T2 and BaU conditions on student outcomes. However, large, statistically significant effects were detected in favor of the aligned T1-T2 condition compared to BaU on measures of content knowledge (Unit 1 <em>ES</em> = 0.85; Unit 2 <em>ES</em> = 1.46; Unit 3 <em>ES</em> = 0.79), vocabulary (Unit 1 <em>ES</em> = 0.88; Unit 2 <em>ES</em> = 0.85), and content reading comprehension (<em>ES</em> = 0.79). The aligned T1-T2 condition also outperformed the nonaligned T1-T2 condition on content knowledge (Unit 2 <em>ES</em> = 1.35; Unit 3 <em>ES</em> = 0.56), vocabulary (Unit 1 <em>ES</em> = 0.82), and the content reading comprehension assessment (<em>ES</em> = 0.69). Various effect sizes were not different from zero after correcting for clustered data. Although the magnitude of the effect sizes suggested promise, additional research is needed to fully understand the effects of aligned instruction on the reading outcomes of students with inattention and reading difficulty.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of School Psychology","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 101320"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of a tier 2 reading comprehension intervention aligned to tier 1 instruction for fourth graders with inattention and reading difficulties\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth A. Stevens ,&nbsp;Alicia Stewart ,&nbsp;Sharon Vaughn ,&nbsp;Young Ri Lee ,&nbsp;Nancy Scammacca ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Swanson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study reports a secondary analysis from a quasi-experimental design study (<em>N</em> = 13 schools) to examine the effects of aligned Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) instruction for a subsample of fourth graders with inattention and reading difficulties. Of this sample (<em>N</em> = 63 students), 100% received free- or reduced-price lunch, 92% identified as Hispanic, and 22% received special education services. T1 instruction focused on implementing practices to support reading comprehension and content learning during social studies instruction. The aligned T2 intervention focused on remediating reading comprehension difficulties using the same evidence-based practices implemented in T1, thus supporting students with connecting learning and applying skills across settings. Schools were assigned to one of three conditions: (a) aligned T1-T2 instruction; (b) nonaligned T1-T2 instruction, in which T1 and T2 practices were not intentionally aligned; or (c) business-as-usual (BaU) T1 and T2 practices. No significant differences were detected between the nonaligned T1-T2 and BaU conditions on student outcomes. However, large, statistically significant effects were detected in favor of the aligned T1-T2 condition compared to BaU on measures of content knowledge (Unit 1 <em>ES</em> = 0.85; Unit 2 <em>ES</em> = 1.46; Unit 3 <em>ES</em> = 0.79), vocabulary (Unit 1 <em>ES</em> = 0.88; Unit 2 <em>ES</em> = 0.85), and content reading comprehension (<em>ES</em> = 0.79). The aligned T1-T2 condition also outperformed the nonaligned T1-T2 condition on content knowledge (Unit 2 <em>ES</em> = 1.35; Unit 3 <em>ES</em> = 0.56), vocabulary (Unit 1 <em>ES</em> = 0.82), and the content reading comprehension assessment (<em>ES</em> = 0.69). Various effect sizes were not different from zero after correcting for clustered data. Although the magnitude of the effect sizes suggested promise, additional research is needed to fully understand the effects of aligned instruction on the reading outcomes of students with inattention and reading difficulty.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":\"105 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440524000402\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440524000402","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究报告对一项准实验设计研究(N = 13 所学校)进行了二次分析,以检验针对注意力不集中和有阅读困难的四年级学生的第一级(T1)和第二级(T2)统一教学的效果。在这个样本(N = 63 名学生)中,100% 的学生享受免费或减价午餐,92% 的学生被认定为西班牙裔,22% 的学生接受特殊教育服务。第一阶段的教学重点是在社会研究教学中实施支持阅读理解和内容学习的实践。调整后的 T2 干预重点是利用在 T1 中实施的相同循证实践来补救阅读理解方面的困难,从而支持学生在不同环境中联系学习和应用技能。学校被分配到三种情况中的一种:(a)T1-T2 对齐教学;(b)T1-T2 非对齐教学,即 T1 和 T2 实践没有刻意对齐;或(c)T1 和 T2 实践一切照旧(BaU)。在 T1-T2 不对齐和 BaU 条件下,学生成绩没有明显差异。然而,在内容知识(第一单元 ES = 0.85;第二单元 ES = 1.46;第三单元 ES = 0.79)、词汇(第一单元 ES = 0.88;第二单元 ES = 0.85)和内容阅读理解(ES = 0.79)方面,与 BaU 相比,对齐 T1-T2 条件产生了巨大的、具有统计意义的影响。在内容知识(第二单元 ES = 1.35;第三单元 ES = 0.56)、词汇(第一单元 ES = 0.82)和内容阅读理解评估(ES = 0.69)方面,对齐 T1-T2 条件也优于不对齐 T1-T2 条件。在对聚类数据进行校正后,各种效应大小与零无差异。虽然效果大小表明前景良好,但要充分了解对齐教学对注意力不集中和阅读困难学生的阅读效果的影响,还需要进行更多的研究。
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
The effects of a tier 2 reading comprehension intervention aligned to tier 1 instruction for fourth graders with inattention and reading difficulties

This study reports a secondary analysis from a quasi-experimental design study (N = 13 schools) to examine the effects of aligned Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) instruction for a subsample of fourth graders with inattention and reading difficulties. Of this sample (N = 63 students), 100% received free- or reduced-price lunch, 92% identified as Hispanic, and 22% received special education services. T1 instruction focused on implementing practices to support reading comprehension and content learning during social studies instruction. The aligned T2 intervention focused on remediating reading comprehension difficulties using the same evidence-based practices implemented in T1, thus supporting students with connecting learning and applying skills across settings. Schools were assigned to one of three conditions: (a) aligned T1-T2 instruction; (b) nonaligned T1-T2 instruction, in which T1 and T2 practices were not intentionally aligned; or (c) business-as-usual (BaU) T1 and T2 practices. No significant differences were detected between the nonaligned T1-T2 and BaU conditions on student outcomes. However, large, statistically significant effects were detected in favor of the aligned T1-T2 condition compared to BaU on measures of content knowledge (Unit 1 ES = 0.85; Unit 2 ES = 1.46; Unit 3 ES = 0.79), vocabulary (Unit 1 ES = 0.88; Unit 2 ES = 0.85), and content reading comprehension (ES = 0.79). The aligned T1-T2 condition also outperformed the nonaligned T1-T2 condition on content knowledge (Unit 2 ES = 1.35; Unit 3 ES = 0.56), vocabulary (Unit 1 ES = 0.82), and the content reading comprehension assessment (ES = 0.69). Various effect sizes were not different from zero after correcting for clustered data. Although the magnitude of the effect sizes suggested promise, additional research is needed to fully understand the effects of aligned instruction on the reading outcomes of students with inattention and reading difficulty.

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
Journal of School Psychology
Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The Journal of School Psychology publishes original empirical articles and critical reviews of the literature on research and practices relevant to psychological and behavioral processes in school settings. JSP presents research on intervention mechanisms and approaches; schooling effects on the development of social, cognitive, mental-health, and achievement-related outcomes; assessment; and consultation. Submissions from a variety of disciplines are encouraged. All manuscripts are read by the Editor and one or more editorial consultants with the intent of providing appropriate and constructive written reviews.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the treatment utility of the Cognitive Assessment System: A meta-analysis of reading and mathematics outcomes The CARES classroom observation tool: Psychometrics of an observational measure of culturally responsive practices Profiles of principal stress and coping: Concurrent and prospective correlates Emotional intersection: Delineating test anxiety, emotional disorders, and student well-being Universal Teacher-Child Interaction Training in early childhood special education: Identifying mechanisms of action that explain why it works
×
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