The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers
This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Reading research quarterly 2005-04, Vol.40 (2), p.148-182 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 182 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 148 |
| container_title | Reading research quarterly |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | MATHES, PATRICIA G. DENTON, CAROLYN A. FLETCHER, JACK M. ANTHONY, JASON L. FRANCIS, DAVID J. SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER |
| description | This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention. /// [Spanish] Este estudio investigo la eficacia de combinar una ensenanza intensiva en el aula y una intervencion suplementaria exhaustiva para los lectores de primer grado con dificultades. Adicionalmente se compararon dos intervenciones suplemenrarias derivadas de orientaciones teoricas diferentes y se las examino en terminos de sus efectos sobre los resultados academicos y de sus relaciones con las caracteristicas de los ninos. Una intervencion (Lectura Proactiva) pertenecia al marco de la teoria de la conducta y derivaba del modelo de Instruccion Directa. La otra intervencion tervencion (Lectura Recetiva)e staba relacionada con una teoria cognitiva y derivaba de un modelo cognitivo de aprendizaje. Las intervenciones se realizaron con pequenos grupos de estudiantes en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que asistian a primer grado. Se evaluo a los estudiantes en varias medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que se as |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85645837</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ684359</ericid><jstor_id>4151678</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4151678</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4694-6359f1f41392688801b52f70456516ae713dd2d57205152802678dabe2083c763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc9rFDEUx4MouK5ePHsYBD0IM01efs5RSre1LRVLRfAS0kxmN9vpTE0y2P3vzThlCx6KuSTk-32fx_s-hN4SXBFeq4PLy28VwxVU8AwtSE1FCRLgOVpgTFmJOacv0asYtzgfDnSBwtXGFa5tnU2xGNoibdwQXPLWdN2uaHxWgutT4fuYwmiTH_rC9E0R09hM_3ZjgrHJBR9zUUb0E6KIN77r_gKnsvW68_26CM40LsTX6EVruujePNxL9H11dHV4Up5_Pf5y-Pm8tEzUrBSU1y1pGaE1CKUUJtccWokZF5wI4yShTQMNl4A54aAwCKkac-0AK2qloEv0cebeheHX6GLStz5a13Wmd8MYteKCcUXlfxgpFbWYiO__MW6HMfR5CA0ESEbJOps-zSYbhhiDa_Vd8Lcm7DTBelqSzkvSDGvQkM0fHogm5sjbYHrr42OFELXCuf8SvZt9OWi7l49OhWI5pixXs_zbd273RMPpCYw98rYxDWFfwEiOVqosl7Oct-ru97IJN1rkIbn-cXGsf0q1OlsB0Rf0Dy_awSI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>212137379</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>MATHES, PATRICIA G. ; DENTON, CAROLYN A. ; FLETCHER, JACK M. ; ANTHONY, JASON L. ; FRANCIS, DAVID J. ; SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</creator><creatorcontrib>MATHES, PATRICIA G. ; DENTON, CAROLYN A. ; FLETCHER, JACK M. ; ANTHONY, JASON L. ; FRANCIS, DAVID J. ; SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</creatorcontrib><description>This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention. /// [Spanish] Este estudio investigo la eficacia de combinar una ensenanza intensiva en el aula y una intervencion suplementaria exhaustiva para los lectores de primer grado con dificultades. Adicionalmente se compararon dos intervenciones suplemenrarias derivadas de orientaciones teoricas diferentes y se las examino en terminos de sus efectos sobre los resultados academicos y de sus relaciones con las caracteristicas de los ninos. Una intervencion (Lectura Proactiva) pertenecia al marco de la teoria de la conducta y derivaba del modelo de Instruccion Directa. La otra intervencion tervencion (Lectura Recetiva)e staba relacionada con una teoria cognitiva y derivaba de un modelo cognitivo de aprendizaje. Las intervenciones se realizaron con pequenos grupos de estudiantes en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que asistian a primer grado. Se evaluo a los estudiantes en varias medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que se asocian al exito en lectura inicial. Los resultados indicaron que: a) los estudiantes de primer gado en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que recibieron intervencion suplemenraria, tanto Receptiva como Proactiva, tuvieron mejores calificaciones en medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que los estudiantes que solo recibieron ensenanza intensiva en el aula, b) la ensenanza inrensiva en el aula parecio promover altos niveles de desarrollo lector en muchos ninos en riesgo de fracaso, c) los dos tipos de intervencion fueron igualmente eficaces aunque reflejaran perspectivas teoricas diferentes y d) las caracteristicas de los ninos no predijeron en forma diferencial la eficacia de una intervencion. /// [German] Diese studie untersuchte die Effektivitat im Kombinieren von verstarktem Klassenraumunterricht und intensiver, suppletorischer Intervention bei sich abmuhenden Schulern in der ersten Klasse. Ferner verglich sie zwei suppletorische Interventionen, abgeleitet aus deutlich theoretischen Gesichtspunkren durch Untersuchen von Effekren aufgrund akademischer Auswirkungen und ob die Charakteristiken der Kinder sich abweichend zu einem unterrichteten Anweisungseingriff verhielten. Eine Intervention (pro-aktives Lesen) wurde einer Verhaltenstheorie angeglichen und von dem Modell des Direktunrerrichts abgeleitet. Die andere Intervention (responsives Lesen) wurde einer kopitiven Theorie angeglichen und von einem kognitiven Lehrmodell abgeleitet. Dies Interventionen wurden klcken Gruppen von Schulern mit Risiken zu Leseschwierigkeiteinn der ersten Klasse vermittelt. Die Schuler wurden auf verschiedene Lese- und lesebezogenen Massnahmen gepruft, die mit dern Erfolg beim Lesen fur Anfanger verknupft waren. Die Ergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass (a) Schuler der ersten Klasse, bei denen die Gefahr des Leseversagens bestand und die suppletorische Lehranweisungen mittels responsiver oder proaktiver Eingriffe erhielten, hahere Leistungen in der Lesebewertung und bei den lesebezogenen Leistungen erziel- ten, als jene Schuler die lediglich einen verstirkten Klassenraumunterricht erhielten, (b) virstarkter Unterrichit im Klassenraum schien im hohen Grade die Lesesteigerung fur viele Kinder mit Risiken zum Leseversagen zu fordern, (c) die beiden Interventionen waren im wesentlichen gleichermaissen wirksam, obwohl sie unterschiedliche theoretische Perspektiven reflekrierten, und (d) aus den Charakteristiken der Kinder liessen sich keine Schlusse uber Unterschiedsmerkmale in der Wirksamkeit einer Intervention voraussagen. /// [Japanese] 本研究では、 リーディングで苦労し ている小学1年生のため の教室内強化指導と補 助的な集中介 入を組み合わせること の有効性を調べた。さ らに、本研究では、異 なる理論的見識感から 派生す る2 つの補助的介入を比 較し、学業結果への効 果と子供達の特徴が、 指導上の介入と特異的 に関 係しているかどうかと いう観点から検討した 。介入のーつ（先行的 リーディング）は、行 動理論 と同調するもので、直 接教授法のモデルから 派生した。もうーつの 介入(反応的リーディン グ) は、認知理論と同調す るもので、認知的徒弟 制のモデルから派生し た。これらの介入は、 難読症 にさらされている小人 数の1年生に施された。 生徒は、初級リーディ ングにおける成功と関 連し た様々なリーディング 及び関連測定法で評価 された。その結果、(a) リ ーディングにおける落第 の可能性にさらせれ、反 応的又は先行的介入法の 補助的指導を受けた1年生 は、単に教室内強化 指導を受けただけの生徒 より、リーディングとそ の関連技術の測定におい て高得点を挙げた、 (b) ）教室内強化指導は、 リーディングにおける落 第の可能性にさらせれた 多くの子供達にとって 高レべルのリーディング の伸びを促進するようだ った、(c)2 つの介入方法は 、異なる理論的見 識感を反映するものだが 、本質的には、同等に有 効的だった、(d)子供達の 特徴は、 介入の有効 性を特異的に予測しなか った、といったことが判 明した。 /// [French] Cette étude a examiné l'eficacité de la combinaison d'un enseignement renforcé en classe avec une intervention supplémentaire intense sur des lecteurs de première année en difficulté. Plus précisément, elle a comparé deux interventions supplémentaires provenant d'orientations théoriques distinctes, en les examinant en termes d'effets sur les résultats académiques et en fonction des caractéristiques des enfants selon le tv,D e d'intervention. L Une intervention (Lecture proactive) correspondait à une position behavioriste et était issue du modèle de I'enseignement direct. L'autre intervention (Lecture répondante) correspondait à une théorie cognitiviste et était issue d'un modèle d'apprentissage cognitif. Ces interventions ont été effectuées auprès de petits groupes d'élèves de première année présentant des risques de dificultés en lecture. On a opéré diff'ℰentes rnesures de la lecture ou de mesures associées avec la réussite en lecture en début d'apprentissage. Les résultats ont montrté que, a) les élèves de première annéee qui 'ðaient en risque d'échec en lecture et qui ont reç un enseignement suppl'éentaire sous forrne d'intervention en Lecture proactive ou en Lecture répondante ont obtenu de meilleurs résultats que ceux qui ont reçu seulement un enseignement renforcé en classe, b) un enseignement renforcé en classe permet d'atteindre un plus haut niveau de développement en lecture pour beaucoup d'enfants présentant un risque d'échec en lecture, c) les deux interventions ont 'ðé pour l'essentiel aussi eficaces I'une que I'autre, quoique refl'ðant des perspectives th'℧riques difftrentes, et d) les caract'ℰistiques des enfants ne permettent pas de präire de manière différenciée l'efficacité de telle ou telle intervention. /// [Russian] Настоящее и ссΛеАование посвящено эффективности сочетания проАвинутого обучения в стенах кΛасса и интенсивного АопоΛнитеΛьного вмешатеΛьства при развитии навыков чтени я у первокΛассников, испытывающих сΛожности в чтении. СравниваΛись Ава типа АопоΛнитеΛьного вмешатеΛьства, основанные на разΛичных теоретических направΛениях, - по акаАемическим резуΛьтатам и по тому, наскоΛько Аифференцированно, с учетом инАивиАуаΛьных характеристик Аетей, происхоАиΛо учебное вмешатеΛьство. ВмешатеΛьство поА названием уирежбающее чменце связано с теорией бихевиоризма и возникΛо непосреАственно из моАеΛи ирямоло обученця. Арутое вмешатеΛьство - омвемное чменце - связано с теорией познания и возникΛо непосреАственно из моАеΛи иознавамельноло ученцчесмва. Этн типы вмешатеΛьства быΛи применены к первокΛассникам группы риска - с высоким уровнем потенциаΛьных труАностей в чтении. Учащихся оцениваΛи при выпоΛнении разΛичных заАаний по чтению и упражнений, связанных с чтением, которые обычно считаются показатеΛьными на первых этапах становΛения навыков чтения. РезуΛьтаты показаΛи, что (а) первокΛассники группы риска, поАвергнутые Λюбому из упомянутых АопоΛнитеΛьных учебных вмешатеΛьств, показаΛи боΛее высокие резуΛьтаты в чтении и развитии связанных с чтением навыков, чем первокΛассники, поΛучившие Λишъ увеΛиченную Аозу обучения в стенах кΛасса, (б) проАвинутое обучение в стенах кΛасса обеспечиΛо боΛее высокую степень развития навыка чтения среАи Аетей группы риска, (в) Ава упомянутых вмешатеΛьства быΛи, в сущности, оАинаково эффективны, хотя они имеют разΛичную теоретическую базу, (г) на основе инАивиАуаΛьных свойств Аетей неΛьзя преАсказать эффективность вмешатеΛьства.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-0553</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-2722</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RRQUA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>At risk students ; Beginning Reading ; behavioral ; Child growth ; Child Health ; Children ; cognitive ; Comparative Analysis ; Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods ; early childhood ; Early intervention ; Early Reading ; Educational sciences ; Elementary education ; Epistemology ; evidence ; experiment ; Grade 1 ; High Risk Students ; Instructional Effectiveness ; Intervention ; learner ; Learning ; Measures (Individuals) ; methodology ; Phonological awareness ; Primary Education ; Public schools ; Reading Difficulties ; Reading Failure ; Reading fluency ; Reading instruction ; Reading research ; Reading Skills ; Reading tables ; Reading teachers ; Reading, writing ; Risk factors ; strategies ; struggling ; Student Characteristics ; Students ; Studies ; Success ; Teachers ; Teaching ; Teaching Methods ; theoretical ; topic ; type</subject><ispartof>Reading research quarterly, 2005-04, Vol.40 (2), p.148-182</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 International Reading Association</rights><rights>2005 International Reading Association</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright International Reading Association Apr-Jun 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4694-6359f1f41392688801b52f70456516ae713dd2d57205152802678dabe2083c763</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4694-6359f1f41392688801b52f70456516ae713dd2d57205152802678dabe2083c763</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4151678$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4151678$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ684359$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16698085$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MATHES, PATRICIA G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DENTON, CAROLYN A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FLETCHER, JACK M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ANTHONY, JASON L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FRANCIS, DAVID J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</creatorcontrib><title>The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers</title><title>Reading research quarterly</title><description>This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention. /// [Spanish] Este estudio investigo la eficacia de combinar una ensenanza intensiva en el aula y una intervencion suplementaria exhaustiva para los lectores de primer grado con dificultades. Adicionalmente se compararon dos intervenciones suplemenrarias derivadas de orientaciones teoricas diferentes y se las examino en terminos de sus efectos sobre los resultados academicos y de sus relaciones con las caracteristicas de los ninos. Una intervencion (Lectura Proactiva) pertenecia al marco de la teoria de la conducta y derivaba del modelo de Instruccion Directa. La otra intervencion tervencion (Lectura Recetiva)e staba relacionada con una teoria cognitiva y derivaba de un modelo cognitivo de aprendizaje. Las intervenciones se realizaron con pequenos grupos de estudiantes en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que asistian a primer grado. Se evaluo a los estudiantes en varias medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que se asocian al exito en lectura inicial. Los resultados indicaron que: a) los estudiantes de primer gado en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que recibieron intervencion suplemenraria, tanto Receptiva como Proactiva, tuvieron mejores calificaciones en medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que los estudiantes que solo recibieron ensenanza intensiva en el aula, b) la ensenanza inrensiva en el aula parecio promover altos niveles de desarrollo lector en muchos ninos en riesgo de fracaso, c) los dos tipos de intervencion fueron igualmente eficaces aunque reflejaran perspectivas teoricas diferentes y d) las caracteristicas de los ninos no predijeron en forma diferencial la eficacia de una intervencion. /// [German] Diese studie untersuchte die Effektivitat im Kombinieren von verstarktem Klassenraumunterricht und intensiver, suppletorischer Intervention bei sich abmuhenden Schulern in der ersten Klasse. Ferner verglich sie zwei suppletorische Interventionen, abgeleitet aus deutlich theoretischen Gesichtspunkren durch Untersuchen von Effekren aufgrund akademischer Auswirkungen und ob die Charakteristiken der Kinder sich abweichend zu einem unterrichteten Anweisungseingriff verhielten. Eine Intervention (pro-aktives Lesen) wurde einer Verhaltenstheorie angeglichen und von dem Modell des Direktunrerrichts abgeleitet. Die andere Intervention (responsives Lesen) wurde einer kopitiven Theorie angeglichen und von einem kognitiven Lehrmodell abgeleitet. Dies Interventionen wurden klcken Gruppen von Schulern mit Risiken zu Leseschwierigkeiteinn der ersten Klasse vermittelt. Die Schuler wurden auf verschiedene Lese- und lesebezogenen Massnahmen gepruft, die mit dern Erfolg beim Lesen fur Anfanger verknupft waren. Die Ergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass (a) Schuler der ersten Klasse, bei denen die Gefahr des Leseversagens bestand und die suppletorische Lehranweisungen mittels responsiver oder proaktiver Eingriffe erhielten, hahere Leistungen in der Lesebewertung und bei den lesebezogenen Leistungen erziel- ten, als jene Schuler die lediglich einen verstirkten Klassenraumunterricht erhielten, (b) virstarkter Unterrichit im Klassenraum schien im hohen Grade die Lesesteigerung fur viele Kinder mit Risiken zum Leseversagen zu fordern, (c) die beiden Interventionen waren im wesentlichen gleichermaissen wirksam, obwohl sie unterschiedliche theoretische Perspektiven reflekrierten, und (d) aus den Charakteristiken der Kinder liessen sich keine Schlusse uber Unterschiedsmerkmale in der Wirksamkeit einer Intervention voraussagen. /// [Japanese] 本研究では、 リーディングで苦労し ている小学1年生のため の教室内強化指導と補 助的な集中介 入を組み合わせること の有効性を調べた。さ らに、本研究では、異 なる理論的見識感から 派生す る2 つの補助的介入を比 較し、学業結果への効 果と子供達の特徴が、 指導上の介入と特異的 に関 係しているかどうかと いう観点から検討した 。介入のーつ（先行的 リーディング）は、行 動理論 と同調するもので、直 接教授法のモデルから 派生した。もうーつの 介入(反応的リーディン グ) は、認知理論と同調す るもので、認知的徒弟 制のモデルから派生し た。これらの介入は、 難読症 にさらされている小人 数の1年生に施された。 生徒は、初級リーディ ングにおける成功と関 連し た様々なリーディング 及び関連測定法で評価 された。その結果、(a) リ ーディングにおける落第 の可能性にさらせれ、反 応的又は先行的介入法の 補助的指導を受けた1年生 は、単に教室内強化 指導を受けただけの生徒 より、リーディングとそ の関連技術の測定におい て高得点を挙げた、 (b) ）教室内強化指導は、 リーディングにおける落 第の可能性にさらせれた 多くの子供達にとって 高レべルのリーディング の伸びを促進するようだ った、(c)2 つの介入方法は 、異なる理論的見 識感を反映するものだが 、本質的には、同等に有 効的だった、(d)子供達の 特徴は、 介入の有効 性を特異的に予測しなか った、といったことが判 明した。 /// [French] Cette étude a examiné l'eficacité de la combinaison d'un enseignement renforcé en classe avec une intervention supplémentaire intense sur des lecteurs de première année en difficulté. Plus précisément, elle a comparé deux interventions supplémentaires provenant d'orientations théoriques distinctes, en les examinant en termes d'effets sur les résultats académiques et en fonction des caractéristiques des enfants selon le tv,D e d'intervention. L Une intervention (Lecture proactive) correspondait à une position behavioriste et était issue du modèle de I'enseignement direct. L'autre intervention (Lecture répondante) correspondait à une théorie cognitiviste et était issue d'un modèle d'apprentissage cognitif. Ces interventions ont été effectuées auprès de petits groupes d'élèves de première année présentant des risques de dificultés en lecture. On a opéré diff'ℰentes rnesures de la lecture ou de mesures associées avec la réussite en lecture en début d'apprentissage. Les résultats ont montrté que, a) les élèves de première annéee qui 'ðaient en risque d'échec en lecture et qui ont reç un enseignement suppl'éentaire sous forrne d'intervention en Lecture proactive ou en Lecture répondante ont obtenu de meilleurs résultats que ceux qui ont reçu seulement un enseignement renforcé en classe, b) un enseignement renforcé en classe permet d'atteindre un plus haut niveau de développement en lecture pour beaucoup d'enfants présentant un risque d'échec en lecture, c) les deux interventions ont 'ðé pour l'essentiel aussi eficaces I'une que I'autre, quoique refl'ðant des perspectives th'℧riques difftrentes, et d) les caract'ℰistiques des enfants ne permettent pas de präire de manière différenciée l'efficacité de telle ou telle intervention. /// [Russian] Настоящее и ссΛеАование посвящено эффективности сочетания проАвинутого обучения в стенах кΛасса и интенсивного АопоΛнитеΛьного вмешатеΛьства при развитии навыков чтени я у первокΛассников, испытывающих сΛожности в чтении. СравниваΛись Ава типа АопоΛнитеΛьного вмешатеΛьства, основанные на разΛичных теоретических направΛениях, - по акаАемическим резуΛьтатам и по тому, наскоΛько Аифференцированно, с учетом инАивиАуаΛьных характеристик Аетей, происхоАиΛо учебное вмешатеΛьство. ВмешатеΛьство поА названием уирежбающее чменце связано с теорией бихевиоризма и возникΛо непосреАственно из моАеΛи ирямоло обученця. Арутое вмешатеΛьство - омвемное чменце - связано с теорией познания и возникΛо непосреАственно из моАеΛи иознавамельноло ученцчесмва. Этн типы вмешатеΛьства быΛи применены к первокΛассникам группы риска - с высоким уровнем потенциаΛьных труАностей в чтении. Учащихся оцениваΛи при выпоΛнении разΛичных заАаний по чтению и упражнений, связанных с чтением, которые обычно считаются показатеΛьными на первых этапах становΛения навыков чтения. РезуΛьтаты показаΛи, что (а) первокΛассники группы риска, поАвергнутые Λюбому из упомянутых АопоΛнитеΛьных учебных вмешатеΛьств, показаΛи боΛее высокие резуΛьтаты в чтении и развитии связанных с чтением навыков, чем первокΛассники, поΛучившие Λишъ увеΛиченную Аозу обучения в стенах кΛасса, (б) проАвинутое обучение в стенах кΛасса обеспечиΛо боΛее высокую степень развития навыка чтения среАи Аетей группы риска, (в) Ава упомянутых вмешатеΛьства быΛи, в сущности, оАинаково эффективны, хотя они имеют разΛичную теоретическую базу, (г) на основе инАивиАуаΛьных свойств Аетей неΛьзя преАсказать эффективность вмешатеΛьства.</description><subject>At risk students</subject><subject>Beginning Reading</subject><subject>behavioral</subject><subject>Child growth</subject><subject>Child Health</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>cognitive</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods</subject><subject>early childhood</subject><subject>Early intervention</subject><subject>Early Reading</subject><subject>Educational sciences</subject><subject>Elementary education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>evidence</subject><subject>experiment</subject><subject>Grade 1</subject><subject>High Risk Students</subject><subject>Instructional Effectiveness</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>learner</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Measures (Individuals)</subject><subject>methodology</subject><subject>Phonological awareness</subject><subject>Primary Education</subject><subject>Public schools</subject><subject>Reading Difficulties</subject><subject>Reading Failure</subject><subject>Reading fluency</subject><subject>Reading instruction</subject><subject>Reading research</subject><subject>Reading Skills</subject><subject>Reading tables</subject><subject>Reading teachers</subject><subject>Reading, writing</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>strategies</subject><subject>struggling</subject><subject>Student Characteristics</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>theoretical</subject><subject>topic</subject><subject>type</subject><issn>0034-0553</issn><issn>1936-2722</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc9rFDEUx4MouK5ePHsYBD0IM01efs5RSre1LRVLRfAS0kxmN9vpTE0y2P3vzThlCx6KuSTk-32fx_s-hN4SXBFeq4PLy28VwxVU8AwtSE1FCRLgOVpgTFmJOacv0asYtzgfDnSBwtXGFa5tnU2xGNoibdwQXPLWdN2uaHxWgutT4fuYwmiTH_rC9E0R09hM_3ZjgrHJBR9zUUb0E6KIN77r_gKnsvW68_26CM40LsTX6EVruujePNxL9H11dHV4Up5_Pf5y-Pm8tEzUrBSU1y1pGaE1CKUUJtccWokZF5wI4yShTQMNl4A54aAwCKkac-0AK2qloEv0cebeheHX6GLStz5a13Wmd8MYteKCcUXlfxgpFbWYiO__MW6HMfR5CA0ESEbJOps-zSYbhhiDa_Vd8Lcm7DTBelqSzkvSDGvQkM0fHogm5sjbYHrr42OFELXCuf8SvZt9OWi7l49OhWI5pixXs_zbd273RMPpCYw98rYxDWFfwEiOVqosl7Oct-ru97IJN1rkIbn-cXGsf0q1OlsB0Rf0Dy_awSI</recordid><startdate>20050401</startdate><enddate>20050401</enddate><creator>MATHES, PATRICIA G.</creator><creator>DENTON, CAROLYN A.</creator><creator>FLETCHER, JACK M.</creator><creator>ANTHONY, JASON L.</creator><creator>FRANCIS, DAVID J.</creator><creator>SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>International Reading Association</general><general>International Reading Association, Order Department</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M6I</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050401</creationdate><title>The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers</title><author>MATHES, PATRICIA G. ; DENTON, CAROLYN A. ; FLETCHER, JACK M. ; ANTHONY, JASON L. ; FRANCIS, DAVID J. ; SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4694-6359f1f41392688801b52f70456516ae713dd2d57205152802678dabe2083c763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>At risk students</topic><topic>Beginning Reading</topic><topic>behavioral</topic><topic>Child growth</topic><topic>Child Health</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>cognitive</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods</topic><topic>early childhood</topic><topic>Early intervention</topic><topic>Early Reading</topic><topic>Educational sciences</topic><topic>Elementary education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>evidence</topic><topic>experiment</topic><topic>Grade 1</topic><topic>High Risk Students</topic><topic>Instructional Effectiveness</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>learner</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Measures (Individuals)</topic><topic>methodology</topic><topic>Phonological awareness</topic><topic>Primary Education</topic><topic>Public schools</topic><topic>Reading Difficulties</topic><topic>Reading Failure</topic><topic>Reading fluency</topic><topic>Reading instruction</topic><topic>Reading research</topic><topic>Reading Skills</topic><topic>Reading tables</topic><topic>Reading teachers</topic><topic>Reading, writing</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>strategies</topic><topic>struggling</topic><topic>Student Characteristics</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>theoretical</topic><topic>topic</topic><topic>type</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MATHES, PATRICIA G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DENTON, CAROLYN A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FLETCHER, JACK M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ANTHONY, JASON L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FRANCIS, DAVID J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>KidQuest Magazines</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Reading research quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MATHES, PATRICIA G.</au><au>DENTON, CAROLYN A.</au><au>FLETCHER, JACK M.</au><au>ANTHONY, JASON L.</au><au>FRANCIS, DAVID J.</au><au>SCHATSCHNEIDER, CHRISTOPHER</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ684359</ericid><atitle>The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers</atitle><jtitle>Reading research quarterly</jtitle><date>2005-04-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>148</spage><epage>182</epage><pages>148-182</pages><issn>0034-0553</issn><eissn>1936-2722</eissn><coden>RRQUA6</coden><abstract>This study investigated the effectiveness of combining enhanced classroom instruction and intense supplemental intervention for struggling readers in first grade. Further, it compared two supplemental interventions derived from distinct theoretical orientations, examining them in terms of effects on academic outcomes and whether children's characteristics were differentially related to an instructional intervention. One intervention (Proactive Reading) was aligned with behavioral theory and was derived from the model of Direct Instruction. The other intervention (Responsive Reading) was aligned with a cognitive theory and was derived from a cognitive-apprenticeship model. These interventions were provided to small groups of first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Students were assessed on various reading and reading-related measures associated with success in beginning reading. Results indicated that (a) first-grade students who were at risk for reading failure and who received supplemental instruction in the Responsive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures of reading and reading-related skills than students who received only enhanced classroom instruction, (b) enhanced classroom instruction appeared to promote high levels of reading growth for many children at risk for reading failure, (c) the two interventions were essentially equally effective even though they reflected different theoretical perspectives, and (d) children's characteristics did not differentially predict the effectiveness of an intervention. /// [Spanish] Este estudio investigo la eficacia de combinar una ensenanza intensiva en el aula y una intervencion suplementaria exhaustiva para los lectores de primer grado con dificultades. Adicionalmente se compararon dos intervenciones suplemenrarias derivadas de orientaciones teoricas diferentes y se las examino en terminos de sus efectos sobre los resultados academicos y de sus relaciones con las caracteristicas de los ninos. Una intervencion (Lectura Proactiva) pertenecia al marco de la teoria de la conducta y derivaba del modelo de Instruccion Directa. La otra intervencion tervencion (Lectura Recetiva)e staba relacionada con una teoria cognitiva y derivaba de un modelo cognitivo de aprendizaje. Las intervenciones se realizaron con pequenos grupos de estudiantes en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que asistian a primer grado. Se evaluo a los estudiantes en varias medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que se asocian al exito en lectura inicial. Los resultados indicaron que: a) los estudiantes de primer gado en riesgo de fracaso en lectura que recibieron intervencion suplemenraria, tanto Receptiva como Proactiva, tuvieron mejores calificaciones en medidas de lectura y habilidades relacionadas que los estudiantes que solo recibieron ensenanza intensiva en el aula, b) la ensenanza inrensiva en el aula parecio promover altos niveles de desarrollo lector en muchos ninos en riesgo de fracaso, c) los dos tipos de intervencion fueron igualmente eficaces aunque reflejaran perspectivas teoricas diferentes y d) las caracteristicas de los ninos no predijeron en forma diferencial la eficacia de una intervencion. /// [German] Diese studie untersuchte die Effektivitat im Kombinieren von verstarktem Klassenraumunterricht und intensiver, suppletorischer Intervention bei sich abmuhenden Schulern in der ersten Klasse. Ferner verglich sie zwei suppletorische Interventionen, abgeleitet aus deutlich theoretischen Gesichtspunkren durch Untersuchen von Effekren aufgrund akademischer Auswirkungen und ob die Charakteristiken der Kinder sich abweichend zu einem unterrichteten Anweisungseingriff verhielten. Eine Intervention (pro-aktives Lesen) wurde einer Verhaltenstheorie angeglichen und von dem Modell des Direktunrerrichts abgeleitet. Die andere Intervention (responsives Lesen) wurde einer kopitiven Theorie angeglichen und von einem kognitiven Lehrmodell abgeleitet. Dies Interventionen wurden klcken Gruppen von Schulern mit Risiken zu Leseschwierigkeiteinn der ersten Klasse vermittelt. Die Schuler wurden auf verschiedene Lese- und lesebezogenen Massnahmen gepruft, die mit dern Erfolg beim Lesen fur Anfanger verknupft waren. Die Ergebnisse haben gezeigt, dass (a) Schuler der ersten Klasse, bei denen die Gefahr des Leseversagens bestand und die suppletorische Lehranweisungen mittels responsiver oder proaktiver Eingriffe erhielten, hahere Leistungen in der Lesebewertung und bei den lesebezogenen Leistungen erziel- ten, als jene Schuler die lediglich einen verstirkten Klassenraumunterricht erhielten, (b) virstarkter Unterrichit im Klassenraum schien im hohen Grade die Lesesteigerung fur viele Kinder mit Risiken zum Leseversagen zu fordern, (c) die beiden Interventionen waren im wesentlichen gleichermaissen wirksam, obwohl sie unterschiedliche theoretische Perspektiven reflekrierten, und (d) aus den Charakteristiken der Kinder liessen sich keine Schlusse uber Unterschiedsmerkmale in der Wirksamkeit einer Intervention voraussagen. /// [Japanese] 本研究では、 リーディングで苦労し ている小学1年生のため の教室内強化指導と補 助的な集中介 入を組み合わせること の有効性を調べた。さ らに、本研究では、異 なる理論的見識感から 派生す る2 つの補助的介入を比 較し、学業結果への効 果と子供達の特徴が、 指導上の介入と特異的 に関 係しているかどうかと いう観点から検討した 。介入のーつ（先行的 リーディング）は、行 動理論 と同調するもので、直 接教授法のモデルから 派生した。もうーつの 介入(反応的リーディン グ) は、認知理論と同調す るもので、認知的徒弟 制のモデルから派生し た。これらの介入は、 難読症 にさらされている小人 数の1年生に施された。 生徒は、初級リーディ ングにおける成功と関 連し た様々なリーディング 及び関連測定法で評価 された。その結果、(a) リ ーディングにおける落第 の可能性にさらせれ、反 応的又は先行的介入法の 補助的指導を受けた1年生 は、単に教室内強化 指導を受けただけの生徒 より、リーディングとそ の関連技術の測定におい て高得点を挙げた、 (b) ）教室内強化指導は、 リーディングにおける落 第の可能性にさらせれた 多くの子供達にとって 高レべルのリーディング の伸びを促進するようだ った、(c)2 つの介入方法は 、異なる理論的見 識感を反映するものだが 、本質的には、同等に有 効的だった、(d)子供達の 特徴は、 介入の有効 性を特異的に予測しなか った、といったことが判 明した。 /// [French] Cette étude a examiné l'eficacité de la combinaison d'un enseignement renforcé en classe avec une intervention supplémentaire intense sur des lecteurs de première année en difficulté. Plus précisément, elle a comparé deux interventions supplémentaires provenant d'orientations théoriques distinctes, en les examinant en termes d'effets sur les résultats académiques et en fonction des caractéristiques des enfants selon le tv,D e d'intervention. L Une intervention (Lecture proactive) correspondait à une position behavioriste et était issue du modèle de I'enseignement direct. L'autre intervention (Lecture répondante) correspondait à une théorie cognitiviste et était issue d'un modèle d'apprentissage cognitif. Ces interventions ont été effectuées auprès de petits groupes d'élèves de première année présentant des risques de dificultés en lecture. On a opéré diff'ℰentes rnesures de la lecture ou de mesures associées avec la réussite en lecture en début d'apprentissage. Les résultats ont montrté que, a) les élèves de première annéee qui 'ðaient en risque d'échec en lecture et qui ont reç un enseignement suppl'éentaire sous forrne d'intervention en Lecture proactive ou en Lecture répondante ont obtenu de meilleurs résultats que ceux qui ont reçu seulement un enseignement renforcé en classe, b) un enseignement renforcé en classe permet d'atteindre un plus haut niveau de développement en lecture pour beaucoup d'enfants présentant un risque d'échec en lecture, c) les deux interventions ont 'ðé pour l'essentiel aussi eficaces I'une que I'autre, quoique refl'ðant des perspectives th'℧riques difftrentes, et d) les caract'ℰistiques des enfants ne permettent pas de präire de manière différenciée l'efficacité de telle ou telle intervention. /// [Russian] Настоящее и ссΛеАование посвящено эффективности сочетания проАвинутого обучения в стенах кΛасса и интенсивного АопоΛнитеΛьного вмешатеΛьства при развитии навыков чтени я у первокΛассников, испытывающих сΛожности в чтении. СравниваΛись Ава типа АопоΛнитеΛьного вмешатеΛьства, основанные на разΛичных теоретических направΛениях, - по акаАемическим резуΛьтатам и по тому, наскоΛько Аифференцированно, с учетом инАивиАуаΛьных характеристик Аетей, происхоАиΛо учебное вмешатеΛьство. ВмешатеΛьство поА названием уирежбающее чменце связано с теорией бихевиоризма и возникΛо непосреАственно из моАеΛи ирямоло обученця. Арутое вмешатеΛьство - омвемное чменце - связано с теорией познания и возникΛо непосреАственно из моАеΛи иознавамельноло ученцчесмва. Этн типы вмешатеΛьства быΛи применены к первокΛассникам группы риска - с высоким уровнем потенциаΛьных труАностей в чтении. Учащихся оцениваΛи при выпоΛнении разΛичных заАаний по чтению и упражнений, связанных с чтением, которые обычно считаются показатеΛьными на первых этапах становΛения навыков чтения. РезуΛьтаты показаΛи, что (а) первокΛассники группы риска, поАвергнутые Λюбому из упомянутых АопоΛнитеΛьных учебных вмешатеΛьств, показаΛи боΛее высокие резуΛьтаты в чтении и развитии связанных с чтением навыков, чем первокΛассники, поΛучившие Λишъ увеΛиченную Аозу обучения в стенах кΛасса, (б) проАвинутое обучение в стенах кΛасса обеспечиΛо боΛее высокую степень развития навыка чтения среАи Аетей группы риска, (в) Ава упомянутых вмешатеΛьства быΛи, в сущности, оАинаково эффективны, хотя они имеют разΛичную теоретическую базу, (г) на основе инАивиАуаΛьных свойств Аетей неΛьзя преАсказать эффективность вмешатеΛьства.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2</doi><tpages>35</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0034-0553 |
| ispartof | Reading research quarterly, 2005-04, Vol.40 (2), p.148-182 |
| issn | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85645837 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | At risk students Beginning Reading behavioral Child growth Child Health Children cognitive Comparative Analysis Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods early childhood Early intervention Early Reading Educational sciences Elementary education Epistemology evidence experiment Grade 1 High Risk Students Instructional Effectiveness Intervention learner Learning Measures (Individuals) methodology Phonological awareness Primary Education Public schools Reading Difficulties Reading Failure Reading fluency Reading instruction Reading research Reading Skills Reading tables Reading teachers Reading, writing Risk factors strategies struggling Student Characteristics Students Studies Success Teachers Teaching Teaching Methods theoretical topic type |
| title | The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T23%3A29%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effects%20of%20theoretically%20different%20instruction%20and%20student%20characteristics%20on%20the%20skills%20of%20struggling%20readers&rft.jtitle=Reading%20research%20quarterly&rft.au=MATHES,%20PATRICIA%20G.&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=148&rft.epage=182&rft.pages=148-182&rft.issn=0034-0553&rft.eissn=1936-2722&rft.coden=RRQUA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4151678%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=212137379&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ684359&rft_jstor_id=4151678&rfr_iscdi=true |