困难读者阅读理解策略干预的积极因素:贝叶斯网络元分析

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2023-05-20 DOI:10.3102/00346543231171345
Peng Peng, W. Wang, Marissa J. Filderman, Wenxiu Zhang, Lifeng Lin
{"title":"困难读者阅读理解策略干预的积极因素:贝叶斯网络元分析","authors":"Peng Peng, W. Wang, Marissa J. Filderman, Wenxiu Zhang, Lifeng Lin","doi":"10.3102/00346543231171345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on 52 studies with samples mostly from English-speaking countries, the current study used Bayesian network meta-analysis to investigate the intervention effectiveness of different reading comprehension strategy combinations on reading comprehension among students with reading difficulties in 3rd through 12th grade. We focused on commonly researched strategies: main idea, inference, text structure, retell, prediction, self-monitoring, and graphic organizers. Results showed (1) instruction of more strategies did not necessarily have stronger effects on reading comprehension; (2) there was no single reading comprehension strategy that produced the strongest effect; (3) main idea, text structure, and retell, taught together as the primary strategies, seemed the most effective; and (4) the effects of strategies only held when background knowledge instruction was included. These findings suggest strategy instruction among students with reading difficulties follows an ingredient-interaction model—that is, no single strategy works the best. It is not “the more we teach, the better outcomes to expect.” Instead, different strategy combinations may produce different effects on reading comprehension. Main idea, text structure, and retell together may best optimize the cognitive load during reading comprehension. Background knowledge instruction should be combined with strategy instruction to facilitate knowledge retrieval as to reduce the cognitive load of using strategies.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Active Ingredient in Reading Comprehension Strategy Intervention for Struggling Readers: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Peng Peng, W. Wang, Marissa J. Filderman, Wenxiu Zhang, Lifeng Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/00346543231171345\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on 52 studies with samples mostly from English-speaking countries, the current study used Bayesian network meta-analysis to investigate the intervention effectiveness of different reading comprehension strategy combinations on reading comprehension among students with reading difficulties in 3rd through 12th grade. We focused on commonly researched strategies: main idea, inference, text structure, retell, prediction, self-monitoring, and graphic organizers. Results showed (1) instruction of more strategies did not necessarily have stronger effects on reading comprehension; (2) there was no single reading comprehension strategy that produced the strongest effect; (3) main idea, text structure, and retell, taught together as the primary strategies, seemed the most effective; and (4) the effects of strategies only held when background knowledge instruction was included. These findings suggest strategy instruction among students with reading difficulties follows an ingredient-interaction model—that is, no single strategy works the best. It is not “the more we teach, the better outcomes to expect.” Instead, different strategy combinations may produce different effects on reading comprehension. Main idea, text structure, and retell together may best optimize the cognitive load during reading comprehension. Background knowledge instruction should be combined with strategy instruction to facilitate knowledge retrieval as to reduce the cognitive load of using strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231171345\",\"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":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231171345","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: 1

摘要

本研究基于52项以英语国家为样本的研究,采用贝叶斯网络元分析的方法,探讨了不同阅读理解策略组合对三至十二年级阅读困难学生阅读理解的干预效果。我们关注了常用的策略:主旨、推理、文本结构、复述、预测、自我监控和图形组织。结果表明:(1)教学策略越多,对学生阅读理解的影响并不一定越强;(2)没有单一的阅读理解策略产生最强的效果;(3)主旨、文本结构和复述作为主要策略一起教学,似乎最有效;(4)只有在背景知识教学中,策略的效果才有效。这些发现表明,在有阅读困难的学生中,策略教学遵循一种成分互动模式,即没有一种策略是最有效的。并不是“我们教得越多,期望的结果就越好”。相反,不同的策略组合会产生不同的阅读理解效果。大意、篇章结构和复述一起进行,可以最大限度地优化阅读理解过程中的认知负荷。背景知识教学应与策略教学相结合,方便知识检索,减少策略使用的认知负荷。
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 Active Ingredient in Reading Comprehension Strategy Intervention for Struggling Readers: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis
Based on 52 studies with samples mostly from English-speaking countries, the current study used Bayesian network meta-analysis to investigate the intervention effectiveness of different reading comprehension strategy combinations on reading comprehension among students with reading difficulties in 3rd through 12th grade. We focused on commonly researched strategies: main idea, inference, text structure, retell, prediction, self-monitoring, and graphic organizers. Results showed (1) instruction of more strategies did not necessarily have stronger effects on reading comprehension; (2) there was no single reading comprehension strategy that produced the strongest effect; (3) main idea, text structure, and retell, taught together as the primary strategies, seemed the most effective; and (4) the effects of strategies only held when background knowledge instruction was included. These findings suggest strategy instruction among students with reading difficulties follows an ingredient-interaction model—that is, no single strategy works the best. It is not “the more we teach, the better outcomes to expect.” Instead, different strategy combinations may produce different effects on reading comprehension. Main idea, text structure, and retell together may best optimize the cognitive load during reading comprehension. Background knowledge instruction should be combined with strategy instruction to facilitate knowledge retrieval as to reduce the cognitive load of using strategies.
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
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
期刊最新文献
Development and Feasibility Pilot Study of Indigenous Recovery Planning: A Community-Engaged Approach to Addressing Substance Use in a Native Community. Multidimensional Framing of Environments Beyond Blocks and Texts in K–12 Programming Robots’ Social Behaviors for Language Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis The Emergence and Escalation of Online Racial Discrimination in Digital Spaces: A Systematic Review Assessing Teachers’ Culturally Responsive Classroom Practice in PK–12 Schools: A Systematic Review of Teacher-, Student-, and Observer-Report Measures
×
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