van Dijk Wilhelmina, Schatschneider Christopher, Al Otaiba Stephanie, Hart Sara A
Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.
Florida Center for Reading Research & Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
J Res Educ Eff. 2024;17(3):491-512. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2023.2194894. Epub 2023 Apr 10.
Core reading instruction and interventions have differential effects based on student characteristics such as cognitive ability and pre-intervention skill level. Evidence for differential effect based on affective characteristics is scant and ambiguous; however, students with problem behavior are more often non-responsive to core reading instruction and intensive reading interventions. In this study, we estimated the range of students' behavior ratings in which a core reading instruction intervention was effective using a data set including 3,024 students in K-3. Data came from seven independent studies evaluating the Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) Tier 1 reading intervention and were pooled using integrative data analysis. We estimated Johnson-Neyman intervals of student behavior ratings that showed a treatment effect both at the within and between classroom level. ISI was effective in improving reading scores (=0.51, =.020, = 0.08). However, students with very low or very high behavior ratings did not benefit from the approaches (range of behavior rating factor scores: -0.95 - 2.87). At the classroom level, students in classrooms with a higher average of problem behaviors did not benefit from ISI (average classroom behavior rating factor score: 0.05 - 4.25). Results suggest differentiating instruction alone is not enough for students with behavior problems to grow in reading ability.
核心阅读教学与干预措施因学生特征（如认知能力和干预前技能水平）不同而产生不同效果。基于情感特征的不同效果的证据很少且不明确；然而，有问题行为的学生对核心阅读教学和强化阅读干预往往反应不佳。在本研究中，我们使用一个包含3024名幼儿园至三年级学生的数据集，估计了核心阅读教学干预有效的学生行为评分范围。数据来自七项评估个性化学生教学（ISI）一级阅读干预的独立研究，并通过整合数据分析进行汇总。我们估计了学生行为评分的约翰逊-内曼区间，该区间在课堂内和课堂间层面均显示出治疗效果。ISI在提高阅读成绩方面是有效的（=0.51，=.020， = 0.08）。然而，行为评分非常低或非常高的学生并未从这些方法中受益（行为评分因子得分范围：-0.95 - 2.87）。在课堂层面，平均问题行为较多的课堂中的学生并未从ISI中受益（平均课堂行为评分因子得分：0.05 - 4.25）。结果表明，对于有行为问题的学生来说，仅靠差异化教学不足以提高他们的阅读能力。
