Jitendra Asha K, Petersen-Brown Shawna, Lein Amy E, Zaslofsky Anne F, Kunkel Amy K, Jung Pyung-Gang, Egan Andrea M
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
J Learn Disabil. 2015 Jan-Feb;48(1):51-72. doi: 10.1177/0022219413487408. Epub 2013 May 16.
This study examined the quality of the research base related to strategy instruction priming the underlying mathematical problem structure for students with learning disabilities and those at risk for mathematics difficulties. We evaluated the quality of methodological rigor of 18 group research studies using the criteria proposed by Gersten et al. and 10 single case design (SCD) research studies using criteria suggested by Horner et al. and the What Works Clearinghouse. Results indicated that 14 group design studies met the criteria for high-quality or acceptable research, whereas SCD studies did not meet the standards for an evidence-based practice. Based on these findings, strategy instruction priming the mathematics problem structure is considered an evidence-based practice using only group design methodological criteria. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed.
本研究考察了与策略教学相关的研究基础的质量,该策略教学旨在为学习障碍学生和有数学困难风险的学生揭示潜在的数学问题结构。我们使用格尔斯滕等人提出的标准评估了18项小组研究的方法严谨性质量,并使用霍纳等人以及有效教育策略资料中心建议的标准评估了10项单案例设计(SCD)研究。结果表明,14项小组设计研究符合高质量或可接受研究的标准,而SCD研究未达到循证实践的标准。基于这些发现,仅根据小组设计方法标准,揭示数学问题结构的策略教学被视为一种循证实践。文中还讨论了对未来研究和实践的启示。