学习障碍学生写作教学:系统评价与元分析之品质评价

IF 1.5 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading & Writing Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221
Jane Roitsch, Mindy Gumpert, Alisha P. Springle, A. Raymer
{"title":"学习障碍学生写作教学:系统评价与元分析之品质评价","authors":"Jane Roitsch, Mindy Gumpert, Alisha P. Springle, A. Raymer","doi":"10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose: Students with learning disabilities (LD) often struggle to initiate writing tasks and have difficulty devoting sufficient resources to complete written compositions. Educators must determine the most effective writing instruction to help these students. Evidence-based educational practices benefit from research reviews such as systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, not all SRs and MAs are conducted with utmost rigor. The purpose of this project was to examine existing reviews of writing instruction for students with LD, appraise their methodologic quality, and summarize findings. Methods: Following an extensive search of 10 databases, we identified two SRs and four MAs that summarized evidence for writing instruction for students with LD. Four trained examiners evaluated the quality of those reviews with an appraisal tool, the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale. We extracted critical elements summarizing findings of each review. Results: One article met standards of methodologic rigor. While search methods were well-described across reviews, rigor in data extraction and analyses were lacking. The reviewed studies identified strategy instruction as the most effective approach to improve writing for students with LD. Conclusions: Evidence suggests explicit instruction and goal-setting approaches may benefit students with LD who demonstrate writing difficulties. Findings suggest the need for increased rigor when conducting these reviews to optimize evidence-based writing interventions for students with LD.","PeriodicalId":51619,"journal":{"name":"Reading & Writing Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"32 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Writing Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses\",\"authors\":\"Jane Roitsch, Mindy Gumpert, Alisha P. Springle, A. Raymer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose: Students with learning disabilities (LD) often struggle to initiate writing tasks and have difficulty devoting sufficient resources to complete written compositions. Educators must determine the most effective writing instruction to help these students. Evidence-based educational practices benefit from research reviews such as systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, not all SRs and MAs are conducted with utmost rigor. The purpose of this project was to examine existing reviews of writing instruction for students with LD, appraise their methodologic quality, and summarize findings. Methods: Following an extensive search of 10 databases, we identified two SRs and four MAs that summarized evidence for writing instruction for students with LD. Four trained examiners evaluated the quality of those reviews with an appraisal tool, the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale. We extracted critical elements summarizing findings of each review. Results: One article met standards of methodologic rigor. While search methods were well-described across reviews, rigor in data extraction and analyses were lacking. The reviewed studies identified strategy instruction as the most effective approach to improve writing for students with LD. Conclusions: Evidence suggests explicit instruction and goal-setting approaches may benefit students with LD who demonstrate writing difficulties. Findings suggest the need for increased rigor when conducting these reviews to optimize evidence-based writing interventions for students with LD.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading & Writing Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"32 - 44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading & Writing Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading & Writing Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1708221","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

摘要

摘要目的:有学习障碍(LD)的学生经常难以开始写作任务,并且很难投入足够的资源来完成书面作文。教育者必须确定最有效的写作指导来帮助这些学生。基于证据的教育实践受益于研究评论,如系统评论(SRs)和荟萃分析(MAs)。然而,并非所有的SRs和ma都是严格执行的。本计画的目的是检视已有的针对弱智学生写作指导的评论,评估其方法品质,并总结研究结果。方法:在对10个数据库进行广泛搜索后,我们确定了2个SRs和4个ma,它们总结了LD学生写作指导的证据。4名训练有素的考官使用评估工具——增增型和替代性沟通系统评估量表——评估了这些评论的质量。我们提取了总结每个综述结果的关键要素。结果:1篇文章符合方法学严密性标准。虽然搜索方法在评论中得到了很好的描述,但在数据提取和分析方面缺乏严谨性。所回顾的研究发现,策略教学是提高学习障碍学生写作的最有效方法。结论:证据表明,明确的教学和目标设定方法可能对写作困难的学习障碍学生有益。研究结果表明,在进行这些审查时,需要提高严谨性,以优化对LD学生的循证写作干预。
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
Writing Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Abstract Purpose: Students with learning disabilities (LD) often struggle to initiate writing tasks and have difficulty devoting sufficient resources to complete written compositions. Educators must determine the most effective writing instruction to help these students. Evidence-based educational practices benefit from research reviews such as systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). However, not all SRs and MAs are conducted with utmost rigor. The purpose of this project was to examine existing reviews of writing instruction for students with LD, appraise their methodologic quality, and summarize findings. Methods: Following an extensive search of 10 databases, we identified two SRs and four MAs that summarized evidence for writing instruction for students with LD. Four trained examiners evaluated the quality of those reviews with an appraisal tool, the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale. We extracted critical elements summarizing findings of each review. Results: One article met standards of methodologic rigor. While search methods were well-described across reviews, rigor in data extraction and analyses were lacking. The reviewed studies identified strategy instruction as the most effective approach to improve writing for students with LD. Conclusions: Evidence suggests explicit instruction and goal-setting approaches may benefit students with LD who demonstrate writing difficulties. Findings suggest the need for increased rigor when conducting these reviews to optimize evidence-based writing interventions for students with LD.
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
4.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Argumentative Writing for Students With Disabilities in Inclusive Science Classes: A Pilot Study Online Intervention to Prevent Summer Learning Loss For Struggling First Grade Writers Can Artificial Intelligence Identify Reading Fluency and Level? Comparison of Human and Machine Performance Exploring Relations between Teachers’ Language- and Code-Based Writing Supports to Early Literacy and Vocabulary Learning in Children with Language Vulnerabilities The Technical Adequacy of Coding Procedures for Retell Measures in Elementary School Students with Dyslexia
×
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