缺乏症学生教师的基础阅读知识:经验、程度与时间利用的考察

IF 2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Esther R Lindström, Kimberly A McFadden, Qiong Fu, Molly J Ruiz
{"title":"缺乏症学生教师的基础阅读知识:经验、程度与时间利用的考察","authors":"Esther R Lindström, Kimberly A McFadden, Qiong Fu, Molly J Ruiz","doi":"10.1111/jir.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Special education teachers require foundational reading content knowledge (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics) to teach early reading skills. Though many measures have been developed to measure such knowledge, none have examined item-level differences related to teacher characteristics (i.e., experience, degree and instructional time use).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this study, we examined the psychometric properties of the 20-item Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language scale using data from 337 special education teachers providing reading instruction to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 20 possible total points for correctly answered items, the average score was 13.2 (SD = 3.5). We conducted Rasch analysis and dropped two misfitting items, resulting in 18 items on the scale (M = 11.9; SD = 3.3). Using dichotomous teachers' years of experience (≤ 5 years vs. > 5 years), education level (bachelor's or below vs. advanced) and self-reported time teaching phonics and phonemic awareness (≤ 20% vs. > 20%) as focal variables, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) analyses as part of the Rasch analysis. A greater number of items showed DIF for teacher experience or instructional time use (8 items each) than for degree (3 items), with easier and harder items identified for each subgroup.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results evince inconsistencies in teachers' acquired foundational reading knowledge based on experience, degree and instructional time use. Structured literacy standards for teacher preparation programmes and in-service training initiatives may provide the means to address gaps in teachers' knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foundational Reading Knowledge of Teachers of Students With IDD: Examining Experience, Degree and Time Use.\",\"authors\":\"Esther R Lindström, Kimberly A McFadden, Qiong Fu, Molly J Ruiz\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jir.70041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Special education teachers require foundational reading content knowledge (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics) to teach early reading skills. Though many measures have been developed to measure such knowledge, none have examined item-level differences related to teacher characteristics (i.e., experience, degree and instructional time use).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this study, we examined the psychometric properties of the 20-item Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language scale using data from 337 special education teachers providing reading instruction to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 20 possible total points for correctly answered items, the average score was 13.2 (SD = 3.5). We conducted Rasch analysis and dropped two misfitting items, resulting in 18 items on the scale (M = 11.9; SD = 3.3). Using dichotomous teachers' years of experience (≤ 5 years vs. > 5 years), education level (bachelor's or below vs. advanced) and self-reported time teaching phonics and phonemic awareness (≤ 20% vs. > 20%) as focal variables, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) analyses as part of the Rasch analysis. A greater number of items showed DIF for teacher experience or instructional time use (8 items each) than for degree (3 items), with easier and harder items identified for each subgroup.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results evince inconsistencies in teachers' acquired foundational reading knowledge based on experience, degree and instructional time use. Structured literacy standards for teacher preparation programmes and in-service training initiatives may provide the means to address gaps in teachers' knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.70041\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.70041","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:特殊教育教师需要基础的阅读内容知识(如音素意识、自然拼读法)来教授早期阅读技能。虽然已经开发了许多测量方法来测量这些知识,但没有一个测量过与教师特征(即经验、学位和教学时间使用)相关的项目水平差异。方法:本研究利用美国337名为智力和发育障碍学生提供阅读指导的特殊教育教师的数据,对20项教师知识评估:语言结构量表的心理测量特征进行了检验。结果:在正确回答的20个项目中,平均得分为13.2 (SD = 3.5)。我们进行Rasch分析,剔除2个不拟合项,量表上共有18项(M = 11.9, SD = 3.3)。使用二分类教师的经验年限(≤5年vs. bb0 5年)、教育水平(本科或以下vs.高级)和自我报告的教授语音和音素意识的时间(≤20% vs. bb1 20%)作为重点变量,我们进行了差异项目功能(DIF)分析,作为Rasch分析的一部分。教师经验或教学时间使用(每个8项)比学位(3项)显示DIF的项目数量更多,每个子组确定了更容易和更难的项目。结论:教师的基础阅读知识在经验、学位和教学时间使用上存在不一致性。教师培训方案和在职培训举措的结构化扫盲标准可提供解决教师知识差距的手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Foundational Reading Knowledge of Teachers of Students With IDD: Examining Experience, Degree and Time Use.

Background: Special education teachers require foundational reading content knowledge (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics) to teach early reading skills. Though many measures have been developed to measure such knowledge, none have examined item-level differences related to teacher characteristics (i.e., experience, degree and instructional time use).

Method: In this study, we examined the psychometric properties of the 20-item Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language scale using data from 337 special education teachers providing reading instruction to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States.

Results: Out of 20 possible total points for correctly answered items, the average score was 13.2 (SD = 3.5). We conducted Rasch analysis and dropped two misfitting items, resulting in 18 items on the scale (M = 11.9; SD = 3.3). Using dichotomous teachers' years of experience (≤ 5 years vs. > 5 years), education level (bachelor's or below vs. advanced) and self-reported time teaching phonics and phonemic awareness (≤ 20% vs. > 20%) as focal variables, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) analyses as part of the Rasch analysis. A greater number of items showed DIF for teacher experience or instructional time use (8 items each) than for degree (3 items), with easier and harder items identified for each subgroup.

Conclusions: These results evince inconsistencies in teachers' acquired foundational reading knowledge based on experience, degree and instructional time use. Structured literacy standards for teacher preparation programmes and in-service training initiatives may provide the means to address gaps in teachers' knowledge.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信