关于识字中单词阅读复原力的范围审查:评估保护性因素的经验证据

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969
Sanne Appels , Sietske van Viersen , Sara van Erp , Lisette Hornstra , Elise de Bree
{"title":"关于识字中单词阅读复原力的范围审查:评估保护性因素的经验证据","authors":"Sanne Appels ,&nbsp;Sietske van Viersen ,&nbsp;Sara van Erp ,&nbsp;Lisette Hornstra ,&nbsp;Elise de Bree","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To date little is known about factors that might contribute to positive literacy outcomes in children with (a risk of) reading difficulties (RD). Research into resilience in literacy is needed to understand why some children with (a risk of) RD can overcome their difficulties in the face of adversity.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This scoping review aims to 1) provide a framework and operationalize study designs and statistical approaches for studying academic resilience; and 2) systematically review empirical evidence for promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors involved in resilience in atypical literacy development of children with (a risk of) word-level RD.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The systematic literature search included empirical studies with a focus on compensation in literacy development, including samples of 6- to 16-year-old children with a detectable (risk of) word-level RD. Outcome measures had to include at least one relevant literacy measure.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Analysis of the 22 included studies revealed two main findings: 1) most studies had (very) small sample sizes and thus low statistical power to find relevant effects; 2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, empirical evidence for protective factors is sparse and at present based on only a few studies. Based on the current findings, we state implications for the field of educational psychology in planning and conducting research into resilience in literacy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 101969"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963/pdfft?md5=67b2dd7770b415da46eeda1c9009866b&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224000963-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review on word-reading resilience in literacy: Evaluating empirical evidence for protective factors\",\"authors\":\"Sanne Appels ,&nbsp;Sietske van Viersen ,&nbsp;Sara van Erp ,&nbsp;Lisette Hornstra ,&nbsp;Elise de Bree\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To date little is known about factors that might contribute to positive literacy outcomes in children with (a risk of) reading difficulties (RD). Research into resilience in literacy is needed to understand why some children with (a risk of) RD can overcome their difficulties in the face of adversity.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This scoping review aims to 1) provide a framework and operationalize study designs and statistical approaches for studying academic resilience; and 2) systematically review empirical evidence for promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors involved in resilience in atypical literacy development of children with (a risk of) word-level RD.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The systematic literature search included empirical studies with a focus on compensation in literacy development, including samples of 6- to 16-year-old children with a detectable (risk of) word-level RD. Outcome measures had to include at least one relevant literacy measure.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Analysis of the 22 included studies revealed two main findings: 1) most studies had (very) small sample sizes and thus low statistical power to find relevant effects; 2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, empirical evidence for protective factors is sparse and at present based on only a few studies. Based on the current findings, we state implications for the field of educational psychology in planning and conducting research into resilience in literacy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"93 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101969\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963/pdfft?md5=67b2dd7770b415da46eeda1c9009866b&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224000963-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000963","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景迄今为止,人们对阅读困难(RD)儿童(有阅读困难的风险)的积极识字成果的因素知之甚少。本范围综述旨在:1)为研究学业适应能力提供一个框架,并对研究设计和统计方法进行操作化;2)系统性地综述在单词水平阅读障碍(风险)儿童的非典型读写发展中,促进、保护和技能增强适应能力的因素的实证证据。方法系统性文献检索包括以识字发展补偿为重点的实证研究,样本包括可检测到(有)单词水平 RD 的 6-16 岁儿童。结果对所纳入的 22 项研究进行分析后发现了两个主要发现:1)大多数研究的样本量(非常)小,因此发现相关影响的统计能力较低;2)研究设计和/或使用的统计分析往往不足以区分促进因素、保护因素和技能增强因素。此外,研究结果表明,人们对促进因素和技能增强因素的证据认识不足,而对保护作用的相同证据则过度解读。结论总体而言,保护因素的实证证据很少,目前仅基于少数几项研究。根据目前的研究结果,我们阐述了教育心理学领域在规划和开展扫盲复原力研究方面的启示。
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
A scoping review on word-reading resilience in literacy: Evaluating empirical evidence for protective factors

Background

To date little is known about factors that might contribute to positive literacy outcomes in children with (a risk of) reading difficulties (RD). Research into resilience in literacy is needed to understand why some children with (a risk of) RD can overcome their difficulties in the face of adversity.

Aim

This scoping review aims to 1) provide a framework and operationalize study designs and statistical approaches for studying academic resilience; and 2) systematically review empirical evidence for promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors involved in resilience in atypical literacy development of children with (a risk of) word-level RD.

Method

The systematic literature search included empirical studies with a focus on compensation in literacy development, including samples of 6- to 16-year-old children with a detectable (risk of) word-level RD. Outcome measures had to include at least one relevant literacy measure.

Results

Analysis of the 22 included studies revealed two main findings: 1) most studies had (very) small sample sizes and thus low statistical power to find relevant effects; 2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects.

Conclusion

Overall, empirical evidence for protective factors is sparse and at present based on only a few studies. Based on the current findings, we state implications for the field of educational psychology in planning and conducting research into resilience in literacy.

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
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.
期刊最新文献
Competitive and non-competitive school climate and students’ well-being Comparison effects on self- and external ratings: Testing the generalizability of the 2I/E model to parents and teachers of academic track school students Testing the CONIC model: The interplay of conscientiousness and interest in predicting academic effort Metacognitive scaffolding for digital reading and mind-wandering in adults with and without ADHD Retrieval supports word learning in children with Down syndrome
×
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