从研究到实践的35年:四种包容性学科领域课堂内容强化方案研究述评(二

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Learning Disabilities Research & Practice Pub Date : 2021-09-14 DOI:10.1111/ldrp.12259
Joseph B. Fisher, Jean Bragg Schumaker
{"title":"从研究到实践的35年:四种包容性学科领域课堂内容强化方案研究述评(二","authors":"Joseph B. Fisher,&nbsp;Jean Bragg Schumaker","doi":"10.1111/ldrp.12259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article is the second part of a two-part article focusing on research that has been conducted on Content Enhancement Routines, instructional routines developed to be used during inclusive subject-area instruction. Part I of this article (Schumaker and Fisher, 2021) reviews the original validation studies that were conducted on four Content Enhancement Routines. This second part of the article reviews 10 empirical studies that have been conducted comparing the effects of two professional development methods (i.e., a computerized workshop and a live workshop) for instructing teachers to use the same four teaching routines. In every study, teacher knowledge of the routine and teacher preparation for using the routine were measured. In four of the studies, teacher implementation of the routine within inclusive classes as well as student performance were also measured. Results were reported for the whole group of students in all four studies, and for students with LD in three of the studies. In all of the studies, teachers made large and significant gains in performance on all measures after both workshop conditions, representing large effect sizes. All in-service teachers performed the routine at a high level of quality in their classes after 3 hours of instruction. In two studies, the teachers who participated in the computerized instruction earned significantly higher implementation scores than the teachers who participated in the live instruction. Regarding student performance across the studies, the whole group of students and the students with LD earned significantly higher scores on the posttests than on the pretests for both groups of teachers, again representing large effect sizes. Additionally, in two studies, the whole groups of students whose teachers used the software earned significantly higher scores on posttests than the whole groups of students whose teachers participated in live sessions. These studies replicate and extend the studies reviewed in Part I of this article; they show that quality teacher use of four Content Enhancement Routines results in increases in performance for all students, and for students with LD in inclusive classes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47426,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ldrp.12259","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"35 Years on the Road from Research to Practice: A Review of Studies on Four Content Enhancement Routines for Inclusive Subject-Area Classes, Part II\",\"authors\":\"Joseph B. Fisher,&nbsp;Jean Bragg Schumaker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ldrp.12259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article is the second part of a two-part article focusing on research that has been conducted on Content Enhancement Routines, instructional routines developed to be used during inclusive subject-area instruction. Part I of this article (Schumaker and Fisher, 2021) reviews the original validation studies that were conducted on four Content Enhancement Routines. This second part of the article reviews 10 empirical studies that have been conducted comparing the effects of two professional development methods (i.e., a computerized workshop and a live workshop) for instructing teachers to use the same four teaching routines. In every study, teacher knowledge of the routine and teacher preparation for using the routine were measured. In four of the studies, teacher implementation of the routine within inclusive classes as well as student performance were also measured. Results were reported for the whole group of students in all four studies, and for students with LD in three of the studies. In all of the studies, teachers made large and significant gains in performance on all measures after both workshop conditions, representing large effect sizes. All in-service teachers performed the routine at a high level of quality in their classes after 3 hours of instruction. In two studies, the teachers who participated in the computerized instruction earned significantly higher implementation scores than the teachers who participated in the live instruction. Regarding student performance across the studies, the whole group of students and the students with LD earned significantly higher scores on the posttests than on the pretests for both groups of teachers, again representing large effect sizes. Additionally, in two studies, the whole groups of students whose teachers used the software earned significantly higher scores on posttests than the whole groups of students whose teachers participated in live sessions. These studies replicate and extend the studies reviewed in Part I of this article; they show that quality teacher use of four Content Enhancement Routines results in increases in performance for all students, and for students with LD in inclusive classes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ldrp.12259\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ldrp.12259\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ldrp.12259","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文是由两部分组成的文章的第二部分,主要关注对内容增强例程(开发用于包容性学科领域教学的教学例程)进行的研究。本文的第一部分(Schumaker和Fisher, 2021)回顾了对四个内容增强例程进行的原始验证研究。文章的第二部分回顾了10项实证研究,这些研究比较了两种专业发展方法(即计算机化研讨会和现场研讨会)指导教师使用相同的四种教学惯例的效果。在每个研究中,教师对常规的知识和教师使用常规的准备进行了测量。在其中四项研究中,还测量了教师在包容性课堂中实施常规的情况以及学生的表现。报告了四项研究中所有学生的结果,以及三项研究中患有LD的学生的结果。在所有的研究中,教师在两种车间条件下的所有指标上都取得了巨大而显著的成绩,这代表了很大的效应量。经过3小时的教学,所有在职教师都在课堂上以高质量的方式表演了这一常规动作。在两项研究中,参与计算机化教学的教师的执行得分明显高于参与现场教学的教师。关于学生在研究中的表现,对于两组教师来说,整个学生组和LD学生在后测中获得的分数明显高于前测,再次代表了大的效应量。此外,在两项研究中,教师使用该软件的整个学生组在后测中获得的分数明显高于教师参加现场教学的整个学生组。这些研究重复并扩展了本文第一部分所回顾的研究;他们表明,高质量的教师使用四种内容增强例程可以提高所有学生的表现,在包容性课程中也可以提高LD学生的表现。
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
35 Years on the Road from Research to Practice: A Review of Studies on Four Content Enhancement Routines for Inclusive Subject-Area Classes, Part II

This article is the second part of a two-part article focusing on research that has been conducted on Content Enhancement Routines, instructional routines developed to be used during inclusive subject-area instruction. Part I of this article (Schumaker and Fisher, 2021) reviews the original validation studies that were conducted on four Content Enhancement Routines. This second part of the article reviews 10 empirical studies that have been conducted comparing the effects of two professional development methods (i.e., a computerized workshop and a live workshop) for instructing teachers to use the same four teaching routines. In every study, teacher knowledge of the routine and teacher preparation for using the routine were measured. In four of the studies, teacher implementation of the routine within inclusive classes as well as student performance were also measured. Results were reported for the whole group of students in all four studies, and for students with LD in three of the studies. In all of the studies, teachers made large and significant gains in performance on all measures after both workshop conditions, representing large effect sizes. All in-service teachers performed the routine at a high level of quality in their classes after 3 hours of instruction. In two studies, the teachers who participated in the computerized instruction earned significantly higher implementation scores than the teachers who participated in the live instruction. Regarding student performance across the studies, the whole group of students and the students with LD earned significantly higher scores on the posttests than on the pretests for both groups of teachers, again representing large effect sizes. Additionally, in two studies, the whole groups of students whose teachers used the software earned significantly higher scores on posttests than the whole groups of students whose teachers participated in live sessions. These studies replicate and extend the studies reviewed in Part I of this article; they show that quality teacher use of four Content Enhancement Routines results in increases in performance for all students, and for students with LD in inclusive classes.

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
2.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Issue Information (Aims and Scope, Subscription and copyright info, TOC and Editorial Board) Considering Social Validity in Special Education Research The Impact of Gender, Accommodations, and Disability on the Academic Performance of Canadian University Students with LD and/or ADHD Language Proficiency and the Relation to Word-Problem Performance in Emergent Bilingual Students with Mathematics Difficulties Universal and Specific Services for University Students with Specific Learning Disabilities: The Relation to Study Approach, Academic Achievement, and Satisfaction
×
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