Your search
Results 4 resources
-
Numerous research studies (e.g., Anderson, Kutash, & Duchnowski, 2001; Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006; Volpe, Dupaul, Jitendra, & Tresco, 2009; Wei, Blackorby, & Schiller, 2011) have shown that students with disabilities generally exhibit lower reading scores than their peers without disabilities. However, questions remain about the possibility of longitudinal differences among high-incidence disability classifications (e.g., speech/language impairments, SLI; emotional disturbances, ED; learning disabilities, LD; and attention deficit disorders, ADD). This study investigated growth patterns in reading achievement among middle school students from 5th to 8th grade with different high incidence disability classifications on one state's high-stakes assessment. After a repeated measures analysis of variance and post hoc testing, results reveal that students identified as LD and SLI evidenced more growth in reading than those classified as either ADD or ED. In light of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 legislation, findings about the various growth patterns are discussed with respect to policy, measurement, and practical implications. © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
-
This article examines the role of direct instruction in promoting listening and reading comprehension. Instructional examples from 2 programs of intervention research focused on improving comprehension; the Story Read Aloud Program and the Embedded Story Structure Routine are used to illustrate principles of direct instruction. An analysis of these 2 approaches suggests that direct instruction principles are effective in supporting students with varied achievement levels and that these principles can be used to enhance comprehension among students at very different points in reading development. These evidence-based approaches also illustrate that direct instruction can be designed to support complex learning and the development of higher order cognitive strategies.
-
In this study, the literature in disability and higher education was examined, with a specific focus on assessment instruments. Published articles (n = 203) on development of new or refinement of existing instruments were reviewed for traits measured and psychometric rigor reported. Findings showed instruments are intended for professionals and students, and of the student instruments, broad categories are academic, nonacademic, and specific to a disability diagnosis. Not all instruments are limited to students with disabilities; many of the reviewed instruments can be utilized in higher-education settings on all students, faculty, and staff, regardless of disability. The implications of the findings undergird the urgency to prioritize disability as a facet of diversity within higher-education scholarship, and furthermore aid this prioritization by providing a catalogue of robust instruments to researchers and practitioners.
Explore
Resource type
- Journal Article (4)
Publication year
Resource language
- English (2)