The R esearch to Practice Gap in the Identific ation and Instruction of Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities: Teachers' Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated teachers' uses of research on the identification and instruction of students at risk for reading disabilities (RD). It identified obstacles to teachers' uses of RD research and methods to bridge RD research and teachers' practices. Two theoretical frameworks underpinned the study. The knowledge utilization framework consisted of eight stages of knowledge use (reception, search/find, cognition, reference, effort, adoption, implementation, and impact), and three categories of obstacles to knowledge use (supply, demand, and context). A critical perspective also informed the study's methods, analyses, and implications. A mixed methodology was employed by way of: (a) a pre-pilot study which tested the efficacy of the knowledge utilization framework; (b) a narrative synthesis of RD research; (c) a pilot study of an online questionnaire; (d) an online teacher questionnaire; and (e) focus groups. Ten Ontario elementary school teachers participated in the pre-pilot and pilot studies; 204 elementary school teachers completed the questionnaire and eight teachers took part in focus groups. Results revealed underutilization of RD research across the eight stages of knowledge use. Variables within the three categories of obstacles contributed to the underuse of RD research. Research/researcher and user variables correlated most strongly with research uses; user variables were most predictive. Specialized teachers reported greater research use than intermediate grade teachers. Methods to bridge RD research and practice related to research, researcher, dissemination and context factors. Insights which may lead to improved evidence-based reading instruction for those at risk for RD were achieved. Further study of research use across the curriculum and disciplines is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".