INTEGRATING LOW-LEVEL AND HIGH-LEVEL SKILLS IN INSTRUCTIONAL PROTOCOLS FOR WRITING DISABILITIES
INTEGRATING LOW-LEVEL AND HIGH-LEVEL SKILLS IN INSTRUCTIONAL PROTOCOLS FOR WRITING DISABILITIES
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/1511235
复制
发表时间：
1995-09-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
NOLEN, SB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BERNINGER, VW;ABBOTT, RD;NOLEN, SB
24名有写作问题的儿童在三年级和四年级之间的夏天接受了14个一小时的个人辅导，包括手写自动性，拼写策略和写作过程（计划，写作，审查，修改）。一半的儿童（8名男孩，4名女孩）接受了额外的写作练习，另一半的儿童（8名男孩，4名女孩）接受了拼写和语音编码的特殊培训。使用生长曲线的分层线性建模来比较治疗组与非接触对照组（10名男孩，5名女孩）在前测，中测，后测的标准电池上，以及两个治疗组在每个辅导课程中的手写，拼写和作文的探测测量上相互比较，治疗组在手写的一些测量上的改善速度比对照组快，拼写和写作（流利性和质量）在标准电池，但言语智商没有预测的改善率。两个治疗组之间的差异，发现在一些探针的写作措施和动机变量（工作回避）。在试验前、试验中、试验后和随访时，使用重复测量ANOVA比较治疗组与非接触对照组。在6个月随访时，治疗组和对照组之间在一些手写、拼写和作文（质量）指标上的差异有利于治疗组。个体差异被发现在治疗前的学习者特征，并在响应相同的治疗。强调了情感和动机以及认知变量的重要性。
Twenty-four children with writing problems were given instruction in handwriting automaticity, spelling strategies, and the composing process (plan, write, review, revise) in 14 one-hour individual tutorials during the summer between third and fourth grade. Half the children (8 boys, 4 girls) received extra practice in composing, while half the children (8 boys, 4 girls) received special training in orthographic and phonological coding. Hierarchical linear modeling of growth curves was used to compare the treatment groups to a non-contact control group (10 boys, 5 girls) on a standard battery at pretest, midtest, posttest, and the two treatment groups with each other on probe measures of handwriting, spelling, and composition in each tutorial session, The treatment groups improved at a faster rate than the control group on some measures of handwriting, spelling, and composition (fluency and quality) in the standard battery, but Verbal IQ did not predict rate of improvement. Differences were found between the two treatment groups in some probe measures of writing and a motivation variable (work avoidance). Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare treatment groups to a non-contact control group at pretest, midtest, posttest, and follow-up. Differences between the treatment and control groups favoring the treatment groups were maintained at 6-month follow-up on some handwriting, spelling, and composition (quality) measures. Individual differences were found in learner characteristics prior to treatment and in response to the same treatment. The importance of affect and motivation as well as cognitive variables is emphasized.