COMPARING TWO STORY-WRITING MNEMONIC STRATEGIES: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Educators often use mnemonic strategies as a prime method to help children who struggle with writing. This study analyzed 12 fourth-grade students’ stories during their participation in one of three groups. The first group learned the Ask, Reflect, Text (ART) mnemonic strategy with art media in the pre-writing/planning phase. The second group used Think-Talk-Text (T3) to verbalize aloud their story ideas before encoding text. The control group participated only in general education classroom instruction. The results indicated significant differences between the ART and T3 groups for story content; T3 also was significant different for story quality. The effect size scores indicated that ART students performed better with story content and number of words written. T3 students had the largest effect size for story quality. Writing may be one of the most challenging of the core academic tasks. Not only does a writer have to read drafts but also initially generate the text. Agatha Christie (1977), the famed novelist and playwright, described herself as having difficulties with writing as a child. Writing and spelling were always terribly difficult for me. My letters were without originality. I was . . . an extraordinarily bad speller and have remained so until this day (p. 42).Generating ideas, spelling the words, and organizing her texts were a challenge; yet, she learned to manage them. Today, we know much more about how to help struggling writers. To further explorethis issue, the author of this study investigated how 12 fourth-graders’ writing ability would change after learning and applying two mnemonic strategies for writing in a randomized control trial format over 17 forty-five minute sessions. The Rationale For an Empirical Comparison National Assessment of Educational Progress (2007) results documented that writing is a challenge for many students; about 40% of fourth grade students could not write at a basic level. With many students struggling with writing tasks, mnemonic strategy-instruction has renewed visibility given the implementation of response to intervention (RTI) in many schools across the United States, Canada, and other countries where teachers provide research-based, targeted programming to children who struggle with core academic skills such as writing (Gresham, 2002; Haager, Klingner& Vaughn, 2007; JimenezGlez& Rodrigo-Lopez, 1994). RTI is an instructional paradigm where teachers provide research-based programming to students and at more intensive levels as children demonstrate higher levels of need. The data resulting from curriculum-based measures collected once or twice weekly can provide the basis for special education classification, if deemed warranted by the school’s multidisciplinary team. Withthis study’s two strategies (i.e., ART and T3) that focus on visual and auditory modalities, their comparative analysis would add to the existing body of writing-intervention research literature (e.g., Graham & Perrin, 2007a, 2007b).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».