数学学习困难学生研究综述的系统综述

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Learning Disabilities Research & Practice Pub Date : 2022-01-05 DOI:10.18122/sped.143.boisestate
Gena Nelson, Angela R. Crawford, J. Hunt
{"title":"数学学习困难学生研究综述的系统综述","authors":"Gena Nelson, Angela R. Crawford, J. Hunt","doi":"10.18122/sped.143.boisestate","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 36 research syntheses (including meta-analyses, evidence-based reviews, and quantitative systematic reviews) focused on mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD), mathematics learning disabilities (MLD), and mathematics difficulties (MD). The purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of LD, MLD, and MD. We searched the literature for research syntheses published between 2000 and 2020 and used rigorous inclusion criteria in our literature review process. We evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. We coded each synthesis for variables across seven categories including: publication codes (authors, year, journal), inclusion and exclusion criteria, content area focus, instructional strategy focus, sample size, methodological information, and results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this coding protocol was 90.3%. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, very few students with LD or MLD were included, and authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word problem solving, fractions, computer- assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Syntheses reported wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses report achievement outcomes, but very few syntheses report on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledge base on mathematics interventions.\n The systematic review that results from this coding process is accepted for publication and in press at Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.","PeriodicalId":47426,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of Research Syntheses for Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities and Difficulties\",\"authors\":\"Gena Nelson, Angela R. Crawford, J. Hunt\",\"doi\":\"10.18122/sped.143.boisestate\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 36 research syntheses (including meta-analyses, evidence-based reviews, and quantitative systematic reviews) focused on mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD), mathematics learning disabilities (MLD), and mathematics difficulties (MD). The purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of LD, MLD, and MD. We searched the literature for research syntheses published between 2000 and 2020 and used rigorous inclusion criteria in our literature review process. We evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. We coded each synthesis for variables across seven categories including: publication codes (authors, year, journal), inclusion and exclusion criteria, content area focus, instructional strategy focus, sample size, methodological information, and results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this coding protocol was 90.3%. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, very few students with LD or MLD were included, and authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word problem solving, fractions, computer- assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Syntheses reported wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses report achievement outcomes, but very few syntheses report on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledge base on mathematics interventions.\\n The systematic review that results from this coding process is accepted for publication and in press at Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning Disabilities Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18122/sped.143.boisestate\",\"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://doi.org/10.18122/sped.143.boisestate","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: 4

摘要

本文件的目的是为读者提供编码协议,作者用于编码36项研究综述(包括荟萃分析、循证综述和定量系统综述),重点是针对学习障碍(LD)、数学学习障碍(MLD)和数学困难(MD)学生的数学干预。对数学干预综合进行系统综述的目的是确定LD、MLD和MD的内容领域、教学策略、效果大小和定义方面的模式和差距。我们检索了2000年至2020年间发表的研究综合文献,并在文献综述过程中使用了严格的纳入标准。我们评估了36个合成物,包括836项研究,32495名参与者。我们对七类变量的每个综合进行了编码,包括:出版代码(作者、年份、期刊)、纳入和排除标准、内容领域重点、教学策略重点、样本量、方法信息和结果。使用该编码方案的所有代码的平均参与者间可靠性为90.3%。尽管每个综合报告都强调LD、MLD或MD,但很少有LD或MLD的学生被包括在内,作者对残疾和风险的操作定义也各不相同。综合主要集中在解决单词问题,分数,计算机辅助学习和基于模式的教学。综合报告在有效性、内容领域和教学策略方面存在很大差异。最后,我们的研究结果表明,大多数综合报告的是成就结果,但很少有综合报告其他结果(如社会有效性、策略使用)。我们讨论了这项全面综述的结果如何指导研究人员扩大数学干预的知识库。这一编码过程产生的系统性审查被《学习障碍研究与实践》接受出版和出版。
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 Systematic Review of Research Syntheses for Students with Mathematics Learning Disabilities and Difficulties
The purpose of this document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 36 research syntheses (including meta-analyses, evidence-based reviews, and quantitative systematic reviews) focused on mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD), mathematics learning disabilities (MLD), and mathematics difficulties (MD). The purpose of the systematic review of mathematics intervention syntheses was to identify patterns and gaps in content areas, instructional strategies, effect sizes, and definitions of LD, MLD, and MD. We searched the literature for research syntheses published between 2000 and 2020 and used rigorous inclusion criteria in our literature review process. We evaluated 36 syntheses that included 836 studies with 32,495 participants. We coded each synthesis for variables across seven categories including: publication codes (authors, year, journal), inclusion and exclusion criteria, content area focus, instructional strategy focus, sample size, methodological information, and results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this coding protocol was 90.3%. Although each synthesis stated a focus on LD, MLD, or MD, very few students with LD or MLD were included, and authors’ operational definitions of disability and risk varied. Syntheses predominantly focused on word problem solving, fractions, computer- assisted learning, and schema-based instruction. Syntheses reported wide variation in effectiveness, content areas, and instructional strategies. Finally, our results indicate the majority of syntheses report achievement outcomes, but very few syntheses report on other outcomes (e.g., social validity, strategy use). We discuss how the results of this comprehensive review can guide researchers in expanding the knowledge base on mathematics interventions. The systematic review that results from this coding process is accepted for publication and in press at Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.
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