首页> 外文期刊>Journal of behavioral education >A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Two High-Frequency Word Interventions: Traditional Drill and WordSheets
【24h】

A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Two High-Frequency Word Interventions: Traditional Drill and WordSheets

机译:两种高频词干预的比较效果研究:传统钻孔和综合夹

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Traditional drill and practice (TDP) has been shown to be both effective and efficient for increasing word recognition. WordSheets (WS) is a novel drill procedure similar to TDP with two key differences: (a) WS increases opportunities to respond, which may increase efficiency and (b) WS present instructional stimuli in a context that more closely resembles actual reading passages, which may enhance generalization to connected text. The study sought to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of TDP and WS in a sample of first-grade students (n = 27) identified by their teachers as struggling readers. Results indicated that, although WS led to significantly more opportunities to respond, it was both less effective and efficient than TDP with regard to cumulative retention. However, there were no significant differences across interventions in regard to the maintenance or generalization of treatment gains. Limitations and implications of the current study for school-based professionals are discussed.
机译:传统的钻头和实践(TDP)已被证明是为了增加单词识别的有效和有效。 Wordsheets(WS)是一种类似于TDP的新型钻床手术,具有两个关键差异:(a)Ws增加了响应的机会,这可能提高效率和(b)在一个更密切地类似于实际阅读段的情况下提高效率和(b)威胁的教学刺激可以增强连接文本的概括。该研究试图比较TDP和WS在其教师确定的一年级学生样本中的效力和效率,作为斗争读者。结果表明,虽然WS导致了更多更多的响应机会,但在累积保留方面,这既比TDP也效果较差和有效。然而,关于治疗收益的维护或泛化的干预措施没有显着差异。讨论了目前校本专业人员研究的限制和影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号