教师执行功能报告能预测阅读发展吗?来自全国代表性样本的证据

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Andrew Weaver
{"title":"教师执行功能报告能预测阅读发展吗?来自全国代表性样本的证据","authors":"Andrew Weaver","doi":"10.1002/rrq.519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study explores whether teacher reports of executive functions predict change in reading performance (i.e., reading development) for elementary‐aged students when controlling for direct assessments of executive functions and for teacher reports of students' literacy skills. Prior research has raised problems with the construct validity of teacher reports of executive functions but has yet to consider that these teacher reports might be related to teachers' perceptions of their students' literacy skills. The current study used Grades 3 through 5 data from nationally representative data (N = 6945) of students collected between 2014 and 2016 to examine the contributions of teacher reports of executive functions to change in reading performance over the course of a year with autoregressive structural equation models. Measures of executive functions tapped attentional focusing (in Grades 3 and 4), working memory (in Grade 3), and inhibitory control (in Grade 4). When controlling for a direct assessment of the same facet of executive function as the teacher report, the teacher report of executive function predicted next year's reading. However, controlling for a teacher report of students' literacy skills reduced the effect of teacher reports of executive functions to nearly 0 across models while not reducing the effect of direct assessments of executive functions. This finding held across student race and home language subgroups in multigroup analyses. Based on these findings, teacher reports of executive functions do not capture information about executive functions that predicts of reading development beyond the teachers' perceptions of their students' literacy skills. Further research is needed to determine how teacher reports of EF could be designed to capture EFs as applied to reading.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Teacher Reports of Executive Functions Predict Reading Development? Evidence from a Nationally Representative Sample\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Weaver\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rrq.519\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study explores whether teacher reports of executive functions predict change in reading performance (i.e., reading development) for elementary‐aged students when controlling for direct assessments of executive functions and for teacher reports of students' literacy skills. Prior research has raised problems with the construct validity of teacher reports of executive functions but has yet to consider that these teacher reports might be related to teachers' perceptions of their students' literacy skills. The current study used Grades 3 through 5 data from nationally representative data (N = 6945) of students collected between 2014 and 2016 to examine the contributions of teacher reports of executive functions to change in reading performance over the course of a year with autoregressive structural equation models. Measures of executive functions tapped attentional focusing (in Grades 3 and 4), working memory (in Grade 3), and inhibitory control (in Grade 4). When controlling for a direct assessment of the same facet of executive function as the teacher report, the teacher report of executive function predicted next year's reading. However, controlling for a teacher report of students' literacy skills reduced the effect of teacher reports of executive functions to nearly 0 across models while not reducing the effect of direct assessments of executive functions. This finding held across student race and home language subgroups in multigroup analyses. Based on these findings, teacher reports of executive functions do not capture information about executive functions that predicts of reading development beyond the teachers' perceptions of their students' literacy skills. Further research is needed to determine how teacher reports of EF could be designed to capture EFs as applied to reading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading Research Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading Research Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.519\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.519","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了在控制对执行功能的直接评估和教师对学生识字技能的报告时,教师关于执行功能的报告是否预测了小学生阅读表现(即阅读发展)的变化。先前的研究已经提出了执行功能教师报告的结构有效性问题,但尚未考虑到这些教师报告可能与教师对学生识字技能的看法有关。目前的研究使用了来自全国代表性数据(N = 6945)的学生,用自回归结构方程模型检验一年中执行功能的教师报告对阅读成绩变化的贡献。执行功能的测量包括注意力集中(3年级和4年级)、工作记忆(3年级)和抑制控制(4年级)。当控制对执行功能与教师报告相同方面的直接评估时,执行功能的教师报告预测了明年的阅读。然而,对学生识字技能的教师报告进行控制,使教师对执行职能的报告在各个模型中的效果降至近0,而没有降低对执行职能直接评估的效果。在多组分析中,这一发现适用于学生种族和母语亚组。基于这些发现,教师关于执行功能的报告没有捕捉到有关执行功能的信息,这些信息超出了教师对学生识字技能的感知,从而预测了阅读发展。需要进一步的研究来确定如何设计EF的教师报告,以捕捉应用于阅读的EF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Teacher Reports of Executive Functions Predict Reading Development? Evidence from a Nationally Representative Sample
This study explores whether teacher reports of executive functions predict change in reading performance (i.e., reading development) for elementary‐aged students when controlling for direct assessments of executive functions and for teacher reports of students' literacy skills. Prior research has raised problems with the construct validity of teacher reports of executive functions but has yet to consider that these teacher reports might be related to teachers' perceptions of their students' literacy skills. The current study used Grades 3 through 5 data from nationally representative data (N = 6945) of students collected between 2014 and 2016 to examine the contributions of teacher reports of executive functions to change in reading performance over the course of a year with autoregressive structural equation models. Measures of executive functions tapped attentional focusing (in Grades 3 and 4), working memory (in Grade 3), and inhibitory control (in Grade 4). When controlling for a direct assessment of the same facet of executive function as the teacher report, the teacher report of executive function predicted next year's reading. However, controlling for a teacher report of students' literacy skills reduced the effect of teacher reports of executive functions to nearly 0 across models while not reducing the effect of direct assessments of executive functions. This finding held across student race and home language subgroups in multigroup analyses. Based on these findings, teacher reports of executive functions do not capture information about executive functions that predicts of reading development beyond the teachers' perceptions of their students' literacy skills. Further research is needed to determine how teacher reports of EF could be designed to capture EFs as applied to reading.
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
10.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: For more than 40 years, Reading Research Quarterly has been essential reading for those committed to scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages. The leading research journal in the field, each issue of RRQ includes •Reports of important studies •Multidisciplinary research •Various modes of investigation •Diverse viewpoints on literacy practices, teaching, and learning
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信