| Sort by: | | |
Presents the selective synthesis of instructional research with children and adolescents with learning disabilities, analyzing studies across instructional domains, sample characteristics, intervention parameters, and sampling procedures. Synthesis indicates that reading is the most researched domain, and intervention studies that produce the highest effect sizes were related to derivations of cognitive and/or direct instruction.
From NASP:
A Selective Synthesis of Intervention Research for Students with Learning Disabilities" by H. L. Swanson, Cristi Carson, and Carole M. Sachse-Lee
EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS FOR CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: H. L. Swanson, Cristi Carson, and Carole Sachse-Lee of the University of California, Riverside, reviewed the results of 78 studies that tested educational interventions for children with learning disabilities. They reported several findings: First, reading is the most widely researched academic area, whereas mathematics interventions are not well researched. Second, interventions that yielded the highest academic gains taught cognitive strategies, followed by those using direct instruction and remedial instruction. Third, the higher the number of intervention sessions per week, the higher the gains in academic functioning. Fourth, cognitive strategy instruction is most effective when taught within an academic domain, rather than as isolated skills. Fifth, the effectiveness of specific strategies may vary as a function the academic domain. That is, Swanson and his colleagues reported that cognitive a strategy instruction and direct instruction are the most effective interventions for teaching reading comprehension: whereas phonetic (decoding) strategy training and remedial instruction are most effective for improving word recognition and spelling skills. Cognitive strategy instruction also is effective for improving communication and language skills. School psychologists are well advised to consider such research findings when making recommendations for students with learning disabilities. |
What do we do when disability affects a student’s ability to learn math skills? That’s the reality for literally millions of students in our schools; certain disabilities do add to the challenge of learning an already challenging subject. Therefore, what the research has to say about effective math instruction for students with disabilities is a vital tool in the hands of school personnel responsible for designing and delivering math programming. This publication offers just such research-based tools and guidance to teachers, administrators, and families. |
This article summarizes a comprehensive synthesis of experimental intervention studies that have included students with learning disabilities. Effect sizes for 180 intervention studies were analyzed across instructional domains, sample characteristics, intervention parameters, methodological procedures, and article characteristics. The overall mean effect size of instructional intervention was positive and of high magnitude (M = 0.79). Effect sizes were more positive for a combined model that included components of direct and strategy instruction than for competing models. Interventions that included instructional components related to controlling task difficulty, small interactive groups, and directed responses and questioning of students were significant predictors of effect size, and interventions that varied from control conditions in terms of setting, teacher, and number of instructional steps yielded larger effect sizes than studies that failed to control for such variations. The results are supportive of the pervasive influence of cognitive strategy and direct instruction models for remediating the academic difficulties for children with learning disabilities. |
Only since the late 1980s has there been sufficient special education research published that meta-analyses and syntheses can be conducted. In this volume, seven sets of authors grapple with synthesizing the knowledge base on an array of critical topics in the field of special education. Anyone who has attempted a meta-analysis or a comprehensive research synthesis is aware of how formidable a task it is. Issues that seem relatively easy or straightforward when described in a textbook are usually extraordinarily intricate and perplexing when put into practice. Every decision, from defining the target population to exclusion criteria for studies, invariably opens up a can of worms. Where one expects many studies, often there are few. And where relatively few are expected, there are often far too many to be able to synthesize properly.
Each of these chapters represents years of work and, often, struggle. We believe the effort and the occasional agonies are reflected in the depth of insight provided in each of the chapters. Four of the research teams use meta-analysis as their major analytic tool. Three of the meta-analyses deal with learning disabilities. Batya Elbaum, Sharon Vaughn, Marie Hughes, Sally Watson Moody, and Jeanne Shay Schumm synthesize what we now know about effective instructional grouping practices for reading. Doug Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Patricia G. Mathes, and Mark W. Lipsey examine differences between students classified as learning disabled and other low-achieving students on a range of academic performance measures. They also discuss policy implications. H. Lee Swanson reviews the entire corpus of instructional research on learning disabilities in order to discern underlying principles of effective teaching and instructional design. (From the Preface of Contemporary Special Education Research) |
Here are a few educational research connections you might find useful as you plan and deliver services to children with specific disabilities such as AD/HD, learning disabilities, or autism. |
|
|
|