阅读障碍学生阅读干预的动机实践

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Topics in Language Disorders Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1097/TLD.0000000000000312
Eunsoo Cho, Katlynn Dahl‐Leonard, Karen F. Kehoe, Philip Capin, Colby Hall, E. Solari
{"title":"阅读障碍学生阅读干预的动机实践","authors":"Eunsoo Cho, Katlynn Dahl‐Leonard, Karen F. Kehoe, Philip Capin, Colby Hall, E. Solari","doi":"10.1097/TLD.0000000000000312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purposes of this study were to (a) describe the extent to which motivational practices are incorporated in foundational reading interventions for students with or at risk for dyslexia in kindergarten through Grade 5 (K–5) and (b) explore whether the presence and type of motivational practices (i.e., supports vs. strategies) within foundational reading interventions influenced the magnitude of the intervention effects on reading outcomes. We analyzed the same set of studies as Hall et al. (2022), who meta-analyzed experimental and quasi-experimental research of reading interventions implemented with K–5 students with or at risk for dyslexia from 1980 to 2020. Results of the current study show that only 44% of the interventions included motivational practices. The majority (84%) of those interventions addressed student motivation and engagement through motivational supports, such as game-like activities, paired work, and setting improvement goals. A much smaller percentage (16%) provided explicit motivational strategy instruction. Results indicated that reading interventions that include direct motivational strategy instruction tend to have larger effects on reading outcomes than both interventions without any motivational practices and those that include motivational supports only. The positive effect of motivational strategy instruction was stronger on measures of word reading than overall reading or reading comprehension outcomes. These findings highlight the need to address motivational challenges of students with reading difficulties and lend insight into how foundational reading skills interventions can be bolstered through incorporating motivational strategy instruction.","PeriodicalId":51604,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Language Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motivational Practices in Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Dyslexia\",\"authors\":\"Eunsoo Cho, Katlynn Dahl‐Leonard, Karen F. Kehoe, Philip Capin, Colby Hall, E. Solari\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TLD.0000000000000312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purposes of this study were to (a) describe the extent to which motivational practices are incorporated in foundational reading interventions for students with or at risk for dyslexia in kindergarten through Grade 5 (K–5) and (b) explore whether the presence and type of motivational practices (i.e., supports vs. strategies) within foundational reading interventions influenced the magnitude of the intervention effects on reading outcomes. We analyzed the same set of studies as Hall et al. (2022), who meta-analyzed experimental and quasi-experimental research of reading interventions implemented with K–5 students with or at risk for dyslexia from 1980 to 2020. Results of the current study show that only 44% of the interventions included motivational practices. The majority (84%) of those interventions addressed student motivation and engagement through motivational supports, such as game-like activities, paired work, and setting improvement goals. A much smaller percentage (16%) provided explicit motivational strategy instruction. Results indicated that reading interventions that include direct motivational strategy instruction tend to have larger effects on reading outcomes than both interventions without any motivational practices and those that include motivational supports only. The positive effect of motivational strategy instruction was stronger on measures of word reading than overall reading or reading comprehension outcomes. These findings highlight the need to address motivational challenges of students with reading difficulties and lend insight into how foundational reading skills interventions can be bolstered through incorporating motivational strategy instruction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Language Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Language Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000312\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Language Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000312","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是(a)描述动机实践在幼儿园到五年级(K-5)有阅读障碍或有阅读障碍风险的学生的基础阅读干预中被纳入的程度,(b)探索基础阅读干预中动机实践的存在和类型(即支持vs策略)是否会影响干预对阅读结果的影响程度。我们分析了与Hall等人(2022)相同的一组研究,他们荟萃分析了1980年至2020年对患有或有阅读障碍风险的K-5学生实施的阅读干预的实验和准实验研究。目前的研究结果表明,只有44%的干预措施包括动机练习。这些干预措施中的大多数(84%)通过激励支持来解决学生的动机和参与问题,例如游戏式活动、配对工作和设定改进目标。提供明确的激励策略指导的比例要小得多(16%)。结果表明,包括直接动机策略指导的阅读干预对阅读结果的影响大于不包括任何动机实践的干预和只包括动机支持的干预。动机策略教学对单词阅读测试的积极作用强于整体阅读或阅读理解结果。这些发现强调了解决有阅读困难的学生的动机挑战的必要性,并为如何通过结合动机策略指导来加强基础阅读技能干预提供了见解。
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
Motivational Practices in Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Dyslexia
The purposes of this study were to (a) describe the extent to which motivational practices are incorporated in foundational reading interventions for students with or at risk for dyslexia in kindergarten through Grade 5 (K–5) and (b) explore whether the presence and type of motivational practices (i.e., supports vs. strategies) within foundational reading interventions influenced the magnitude of the intervention effects on reading outcomes. We analyzed the same set of studies as Hall et al. (2022), who meta-analyzed experimental and quasi-experimental research of reading interventions implemented with K–5 students with or at risk for dyslexia from 1980 to 2020. Results of the current study show that only 44% of the interventions included motivational practices. The majority (84%) of those interventions addressed student motivation and engagement through motivational supports, such as game-like activities, paired work, and setting improvement goals. A much smaller percentage (16%) provided explicit motivational strategy instruction. Results indicated that reading interventions that include direct motivational strategy instruction tend to have larger effects on reading outcomes than both interventions without any motivational practices and those that include motivational supports only. The positive effect of motivational strategy instruction was stronger on measures of word reading than overall reading or reading comprehension outcomes. These findings highlight the need to address motivational challenges of students with reading difficulties and lend insight into how foundational reading skills interventions can be bolstered through incorporating motivational strategy instruction.
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
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Topics in Language Disorders (TLD) is a double-blind peer-reviewed topical journal that has dual purposes: (1) to serve as a scholarly resource for researchers and clinicians who share an interest in spoken and written language development and disorders across the lifespan, with a focus on interdisciplinary and international concerns; and (2) to provide relevant information to support theoretically sound, culturally sensitive, research-based clinical practices.
期刊最新文献
Implementing Strategy-Based Instruction for Struggling Writers via Telepractice Effects of Integrating Different Types of Physical Activity Into Virtual Rapid Word Learning Instruction for Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Innovations in Language and Literacy for Children and Adolescents With Language Disorders Using Multiliteracies to Target Critical Media Literacy for Adolescents With Language Learning Disabilities Coordinating Multiple Language Levels in Writing
×
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