| Sort by: | | |
The relationship between cognitive-behavioral interventions/therapies (the intervention) and dropout outcomes and violent verbal or physical aggression (the outcomes) for secondary-aged youth with disabilities was explored in this systematic review. A total of 16 studies intervening with 791 youth with behavioral disorders, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders, and learning disabilities were reviewed. The findings of this review strongly support the efficacy of the use of cognitive-behavioral interventions across educational environments, disability types, ages, and gender in the reduction of dropout and correlates of dropout. A series of more detailed implications for practice are suggested as well as directions to the reader to locate more detailed descriptions of how these interventions might be implemented in their secondary educational environments. |
This report reviews experimental studies of reading programs for English language learners, focusing both on comparisons of bilingual and English-only programs and on specific, replicable models that have been evaluated with English language learners. The review method is best-evidence synthesis, which uses a systematic literature search, quantification of outcomes as effect sizes, and extensive discussion of individual studies that meet inclusion standards. The review concludes that while the number of high-quality studies is small, existing evidence favors bilingual approaches, especially paired bilingual strategies that teach reading in the native language and English at the same time. Whether taught in their native language or English, English language learners have been found to benefit from instruction in comprehensive reform programs using systematic phonics, one-to-one or small group tutoring programs, cooperative learning programs, and programs emphasizing extensive reading. Research using longitudinal, randomized designs is needed to understand how best to ensure reading success for all English language learners. (From source) |
In a quantitative meta-analysis, the effects of phonological awareness training on reading were shown. In a homogeneous set of U.S. studies with a randomized or matched design, the combined effect sizes for phonological awareness and reading were d = 0.73 (r = 0.34, N = 739) and d = 0.70 (r = 0.33, N = 745), respectively. Thus, experimentally manipulated phonological awareness explains about 12% of the variance in word-identification skills. The combined effect size for long-term studies of the influence of phonological awareness training on reading was much smaller, d = 0.16 (r = 0.08, N = 1,180). Programs combining a phonological and a letter training were more effective than a purely phonological training. Furthermore, training effects were stronger with posttests assessing simple decoding skills than with real-word-identification tests. In sum, phonological awareness is an important but not a sufficient condition for early reading. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved) |
This report presents the reports of the subgroups of the National Reading Panel, which was charged by Congress to assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read. Each of the chapters 2 through 6 contains its own executive summary and appendices in addition to the report of the subgroup. Chapter 1, Introduction and Methodology, discusses the processes applied to the s3l3ction, review, and analysis of research relevant to reading instruction. Chapter 2, Alphabetics, contains sections on phonemic awareness instruction and phonics instruction. Chapter 3 addresses reading fluency. Chapter 4 addresses comprehension (containing sections on vocabulary instruction, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategies instruction). Chapter 5 presents the report of the subgroup on teacher education and reading instruction. Chapter 6 addresses computer technology and reading instruction. The report concludes with a minority view that argues the report of the panel neither responds to its charge nor meets the needs of America’s schools. |
This report presents the reports of the subgroups of the National Reading Panel, which was charged by Congress to assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read. Each of the chapters 2 through 6 contains its own executive summary and appendices in addition to the report of the subgroup. Chapter 1, Introduction and Methodology, discusses the processes applied to the selection, review, and analysis of research relevant to reading instruction. Chapter 2, Alphabetics, contains sections on phonemic awareness instruction and phonics instruction. Chapter 3 addresses reading fluency. Chapter 4 addresses comprehension (containing sections on vocabulary instruction, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategies instruction). Chapter 5 presents the report of the subgroup on teacher education and reading instruction. Chapter 6 addresses computer technology and reading instruction. The report concludes with a minority view that argues the report of the panel neither responds to its charge nor meets the needs of America’s schools. |
This research analyzed the combined results of 3 meta-analyses that examined the extent to which a variety of measures of specific abilities related to reading. More than 450 studies were reviewed, and almost 11,000 different coefficients were analyzed. The best predictors of reading proved to be other written language abilities (i.e., abilities involving print). The implications were: (1) Professionals interested in improving literacy skills should focus on teaching written language abilities such as print awareness and book handling, letters, phoneme-letter correspondences, word recognition, alphabet knowledge, and comprehension; and (2) the current interest in the role of nonprint abilities in reading such as phonological awareness, rapid naming, intelligence, and memory might be overemphasized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract) |
|
|
|