Cliquez sur l'image pour commander l'ouvrage

jeudi 21 février 2013

Enseignement efficace des sciences = enseignement explicite!

Back Page inquiry Science Rocks: Or Does It?


by David Klahr (vu ici)

Figure one small
Figure 1. Proportion of unconfounded experiments designed by children in each phase after having been taught by one of the three types of instruction. See (4) for statistical analyses.

chart two small
Table 1. Features of each type of instruction


Although "inquiry teaching" has been a hot topic in science education for many years, it may be useful to reflect on some unresolved issues associated with it. The main point of this essay is that the relative effectiveness of different types of instructional "approaches" is not always investigated with the same rigor that permeates all strong scientific disciplines–clear definitions, well-defined empirical procedures, and data-driven conclusions. The second–and more contentious–point is that for many aspects of science instruction, "discovery learning" is often a less effective way to teach than a direct, didactic, and explicit type of instruction. Some in the physics education community may view this assertion as a foolhardy heresy, while for others it may be a dark secret that they have been reluctant to share with their colleagues. But heresies and secrets are hardly the way to discover and implement maximally effective instructional methods for teaching science.



I am not alone in suggesting that common practices in physics education may have scant empirical support. Several years ago Handelsman, et al.1 asked: " … why do outstanding scientists who demand rigorous proof for scientific assertions in their research continue to use and, indeed, defend on the basis of their intuition alone, teaching methods that are not the most effective?" (p. 521) The specific lament in Handelsman et al. is the claim that much science education is based on a traditional form of didactic lecturing. However, one could just as well use that very same critique about the lack of "rigorous proof" to challenge the current enthusiasm for "inquiry approaches" to science education. 



For example, an influential report from the NAS on inquiry approaches to science education2 states that "…studies of inquiry-oriented curriculum programs … demonstrated significant positive effects on various quantitative measures, including cognitive achievement, process skills, and attitudes toward science." This would seem to be clear evidence in support of inquiry-approaches to science instruction, except that the report goes on to note, parenthetically, that "there was essentially no correlation between positive results and expert ratings of the degree of inquiry in the materials (p. 125)." Thus we have an argument for the benefits of a particular pedagogy, but no consensus from experts about the "dose response", i.e., the extent to which different "degrees of inquiry" lead to different types or amounts of learning. 



One wonders about the evidential basis for the wide-spread enthusiasm for inquiry science, given the lack of operational definitions of what constitutes an "inquiry-based" lesson–or entire curriculum–and what specific features distinguish it from other types of instruction. There is a particular irony here in that the very field that has developed extraordinarily clear norms and conventions for talking about methods, theories, instrumentation, measurement, underlying mechanisms, etc. often abandons them when engaging in research on science education. 



Although the NRC and AAAS continue to favor inquiry approaches to science instruction, many researchers in the emerging field of "Education Sciences" are not so sure. Controversy about the purported universal superiority of constructivist approaches to science teaching has been growing over the past decade, culminating in an entire volume of pro and con perspectives on the issue3. However, my aim here is not to resolve the issue, but rather to note that the evaluation of one approach versus another is all too often made, as Handelsman et al.4 put it, "on the basis of … intuition alone", rather than on the results of replicable experiments, designed around operational definitions of instructional methods being investigated.



I will illustrate with examples from my research: on different ways of teaching a topic in elementary school science known as the "control-of-variables strategy" (CVS). The procedural content of CVS instruction constitutes a method for creating experiments in which a single contrast is made between experimental conditions while "controlling" for other potential causal factors. The conceptual content includes an understanding of the inherent indeterminacy of confounded experiments. CVS is the basic procedure that enables children to design unconfounded experiments from which they can make valid causal inferences and it is invariably included in high stakes science assessments such as TIMMS and NAEP.  


Three Types of Instruction: Operational Definitions


Our goal is to teach CVS. But the experimental variable in our research is the method of instruction. In our first CVS study5, we compared the relative effectiveness of three different types of instruction for teaching CVS to 3rd to 5th grade students. We used simple physical materials (such as balls on ramps, springs and weights, pendulums, or objects sinking in water).



The three types of instruction ranged from explicit, teacher-directed instruction to more open-ended learner-directed discovery. Note that in the previous sentence, I have used the kind of terminology ("teacher-directed", "learner-directed") that I criticized earlier for its inherent ambiguity. However, the solution to this problem is to be extremely explicit about the features of specific instructional procedures. Furthermore, one can remove the baggage-laden terms, and describe the three different instructional methods simply as Type A, B, and C.



The essential aspects of each of the three types of instruction are depicted in Table 1, where each column corresponds to one of the instructional procedures, and each row describes a particular feature. (In our full scientific report on this study, of course, each of the cell entries in the table was augmented by a detailed "script" for how that component of the instruction was actually implemented, so that it could be replicated in other labs.) 



For all three types of instruction, children dealt with the same materials. For example, we used a pair of identical adjustable ramps that had four binary-valued features (height, surface, length, and ball type). In all cases, (a) children were presented with the same goal: to design a "good experiment" (i.e., "Can you set up the ramps to find out for sure whether the height of the ramp makes a difference in how far the ball rolls?"), (b) this goal was provided by the teacher, not generated by the student, and (c) we used "hands on" instruction, as children manipulated the materials. 



At this point, the different types of instruction summarized in Table 1 begin to diverge. In Type A instruction, the teacher presented explicit instruction regarding CVS (i.e. how to design an unconfounded experiment by varying the "focal variable"–such as the surface of the ramp) while making sure that all the other variables (ramp height, type of ball, length of the run) were held constant on each ramp. In contrast, in Type B and C instruction, the student, not the teacher, designed the experiment. Next, in Type A and Type B instruction, students were presented with probe questions: "Is this a smart way to find out whether the surface of the ramp makes a difference?" "Can you 'tell for sure' from this experiment whether <the variable being tested> makes a difference in the outcome?" "Why are you sure or not sure?" In Type C instruction there was no corresponding probe question. Other crucial features, and their presence or absence in each particular type of instruction, are indicated in the remaining rows. Note that this description is substantially condensed from the descriptions and details in our paper. But the point is clear: each column in the table, and the associated elaboration of what its contents mean, provides an operational definition of the three types of instruction being contrasted in this study.



The results of this training experiment (Figure 1) revealed that (a) only Type A instruction led to immediate gains in children's mastery of CVS, and (b) when tested on different physical materials several days later (such that children initially trained with ramps were now asked to design experiments with springs, and so on), children were able to transfer their CVS knowledge to materials with completely different physical dimensions. Other studies like this one showed that children presented with Type A instruction remembered and used what they learned about CVS in substantially different contexts (i.e., they transferred their CVS knowledge), and they retained it for several months, and even several years, after their instruction. 


What's in a Name?

One important part of any operational definition is the name given to the construct being defined. And in sciences that are still in the process of developing unambiguous operational definitions, the name may carry unintended baggage beyond the specifics of the operational definition. Moreover, to the extent that the terms may be widely used in everyday language, they may be interpreted in different ways by different people.

To avoid this possible terminological confusion, in our first report on our three types of training (4), we used somewhat inelegant phrasing. We dubbed Type A, B and C instruction, "Training–Probe"; "No-training–Probe"; and "Probe", respectively. However, in subsequent studies, we began to call Type A "Direct Instruction" and Type C "Discovery Learning". The consistent finding was that the Direct Instruction condition produced substantially more learning and transfer than did the Discovery Learning condition. 



For example, in one study, after a brief training session, 75% of the students in the Direct Instruction condition mastered CVS, whereas only 25% of the students in the Discovery condition did so. We also found that when challenged a few weeks later to judge science fair posters involving simple experiments created by other children–the children who had mastered CVS in the training phase were much better judges than those who had not mastered CVS–regardless of how they had been instructed. That is, the many children who learned CVS via direct instruction performed as well as those few children who discovered the method on their own. There was no long term advantage to having "discovered" CVS rather than having been "directly instructed" about it6.



Nevertheless, although these results seemed to indicate that we had identified an effective instructional procedure for teaching young children how to master CVS, the everyday labels we had begun to use led to substantial disagreement within the field about which of our conditions was "really" Direct Instruction, which was "really" Discovery Learning, and whether one or the other was a parody of the corresponding method. The problem, of course, is that those arguments were about vague labels, rather than about the relative effectiveness of well-defined instructional procedures. 


Approach Avoidance

The terminological proliferation in the area of science education is daunting. It includes such "approaches" as: constructivism, explicit instruction, Piagetian approach, inquiry science, direct instruction, adaptive instruction, student centered instruction, authentic instruction, hands on instruction, didactic instruction, drill and kill, minds-on instruction, etc. But these imprecise slogans convey little of substance because they are so loosely defined and interpreted. Specifying a "Newtonian approach" doesn't get you very far on the journey to Mars. Only a determined and consistent effort to better define and evaluate our instructional methods will ensure coherent discourse about educational experiments, and ultimately to improved physics education.


David Klahr is the Walter van Dyke Bingham Professor of Cognitive Development and Education Sciences in the Department of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a member of the National Academy of Education.



  • 1 Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile,J., Lauffer, S., Stewart,J., Tilghman, S.M., & Wood, W.B. (2004) Science 304(5670), 521-522. 
  • 2 Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning (2000) Board on Science Education (BOSE)
  • 3 Tobias, S. & Duffy, T. M (Eds.) (2009) Constructivist Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure? Taylor and Francis.
  • 4 Handelsman, et al., Science 304.
  • 5 Chen, Z. & Klahr, D., (1999) All Other Things being Equal: Children's Acquisition of the Control of Variables Strategy, Child Development, 70
      
  • 6 1098 - 1120.5. Klahr, D. & Nigam, M. (2004) The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667. 

mercredi 13 février 2013

Présentation du SCP aux directions des écoles de Bienne, Suisse


Haute Ecole Pédagogique – BEJUNE
Monsieur Sylvain Jaccard, professeur et responsable de projets de recherche à la la Haute Ecole Pédagogique – BEJUNE (HEP-BEJUNE), a visité en décembre dernier des écoles SCP de la commisison scolaire de  Saint-Jérôme. Voici ses commentaires à la suite de son séjour:
« J’ai eu le privilège de découvrir au Québec un système de prévention des difficultés comportementales, le soutien au comportement positif (SCP). J’ai visité plusieurs écoles qui ont implanté ce programme depuis quelques années déjà, et je dois vous avouer que les résultats sont assez époustouflants, et ce à tous les degrés scolaires. J’ai pu m’entretenir avec plusieurs enseignants qui m’ont assuré que ce programme a significativement amélioré le climat de leur classe et, surtout, leur satisfaction professionnelle. Plus encore, et les résultats de recherches l’attestent, les effets du SCP sont positifs tant sur le plan du comportement des élèves que sur leur rendement scolaire, sans oublier le bien-être des enseignants ».
À la suite de cette visite, monsieur Jaccard organise une présentation du système SCP que j’animerai (Steve Bissonnette) pour les directions des écoles de Bienne le mercredi 20 février 2013. Vous trouverez ci-dessous l’invitation envoyée aux directions d’établissement.
« J’aurais grand plaisir à vous faire découvrir le SCP et à vous permettre de déceler l’intérêt d’implanter tout ou partie de ce système dans votre école. C’est pourquoi nous vous convions à une rencontre avec les initiateurs de l’implantation du SCP le mercredi 20 février 2013, à 17h00, au site de Bienne (Ciblerie 45) de la HEP-BEJUNE. Vous aurez ainsi l’occasion de découvrir les tenants et aboutissants du SCP, d’en comprendre les implications éventuelles et de mesurer les retombées positives qu’un tel programme pourrait avoir pour votre institution. (…) Pour votre information, cette rencontre spécifiquement destinée aux directeurs d’école s’inscrit en marge d’un colloque organisé par la HEP-BEJUNE, les 20 et 21 février 2013, qui s’intitule « La professionnalisation des formations à l’enseignement en débat ». Vous trouverez des informations à ce sujet sur le site de notre institution ».
Sylvain Jaccard

mardi 12 février 2013

Un matériel constructiviste inefficace pour l'enseignement des sciences au secondaire?


Il s'agit d'un matériel pour l'enseignement des sciences de type constructiviste voir ici à ce sujet 


Program Description


Great Explorations in Math and Science® (GEMS®The Real Reasons for Seasons is a curriculum unit for grades 6–8 that focuses on the connections between the Sun and the Earth to teach students the scientific concepts behind the seasons. The unit utilizes models, hands-on investigations, peer-to-peer discussions, reflection, and informational student readings to help students understand science content and develop scientific investigation skills.
GEMS® The Real Reasons for Seasons was found to have potentially negative effects on general science achievement for middle school students.
Ampleur de l'effet -0.25 ou diminution de 10 centiles

jeudi 7 février 2013

La réforme québécoise de l'enseignement scolaire : une étude de l'impact sur les compétences cognitives des jeunes

Pilon, D. (2012). Mémoire de maîtrise inédit, UQAM, Montréal, Québec. 104 p.


La présente analyse a pour but d'examiner l'évolution des compétences cognitives des jeunes Québécois de 15 ans à la suite de la réforme scolaire implantée. Réforme ayant pour but d 'accroître le nombre d'étudiants atteignant la réussite. L'analyse repose sur les données du Programme international de suivi des acquis de l'OCDE pour les cohortes des années 2000 , 2003 , 2006 et 2009 . L'accent est mis sur les trois compétences clés incluses dans l'enquête (lecture, mathématiques et science), connaissant l'importance des compétences cognitives comme déterminant de la poursuite des études, du salaire futur, etc. Nous estimons premièrement des équations de capital humain avec le modèle de différence-en-différences et la méthode des moindres carrés ordinaires. Par
la suite, l'analyse est étendue à l'impact sur la distribution des compétences à l'aide des régressions par quantile. Des variables de contrôle sont introduites au niveau des caractéristiques des élèves, de l'école et des caractéristiques socio-économiques. La différenciation est premièrement faite entre les étudiants québécois et ceux du reste du Canada et ensuite entre les cohortes pré-réforme et post-réforme.
L'analyse des résultats des régressions est surprenante. Concernant les compétences en lecture aucun changement n'est détecté avec la méthode des moindres carrés ordinaires. Au niveau des régressions par quantile une influence négative a été subie au 90e centile. Pour les compétences en mathématiques, elles ont subi un impact positif en utilisant les moindres carrés ordinaires et au bas de la distribution en utilisant les régressions par quantile. Par contre, cet effet a seulement atteint les garçons. Concernant les compétences en sciences, elles n'ont pas été affectées par la réforme. La réforme n'a donc pas atteint son objectif puisque seuls les garçons semblent avoir été atteints positivement par la réforme et puisqu'aucun changement positif et significativement différent de zéro n'est relevé. (p. 12)

Le mémoire (104 pages)

mardi 5 février 2013

WOW Synthèse de recherches scientifiques

vu ici http://nichcy.org/research/summaries#social


Interventions for Students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD)

Cognitive and Behavioral Treatment of Impulsivity in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Outcome Literature
Baer, R.A. & Nietzel, M.T.

Cognitive Behavior Modification of Hyperactivity-Impulsivity and Aggression: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Studies
Robinson, R.T., Smith, S.W., & Brownell, M.T.

Effects of School-Based Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analysis

Interventions for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Comprehensive Synthesis of Early Intensive Behavioral Interventions for Young Children with Autism
Based on the UCLA Young Autism Project Model
Reichow, B., & Wolery, M.

Meta-Analysis of School-Based Social Skills Interventions for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bellini, S., Peters, J., Benner, L., & Hopf, A.

Meta-Analysis of Video Modeling and Video Self-Modeling Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bellini, S., & Akullian, J.

Interventions for Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

Cognitive Behavior Modification of Hyperactivity-Impulsivity and Aggression: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Studies
Robinson, R.T., Smith, S.W., & Brownell, M.T.

Educational Environments for the Pupil with Behavioral Disorders: A Best Evidence Synthesis
Schneider, B.H., & Leroux, J.

Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Classroom Disruptive Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis
Ghafoori, B., & Tracz, S.M.

Effects of Child Skills Training in Preventing Antisocial Behavior: A Systematic Review of Randomized Evaluations
Lösel, F., & Beelmann, A.

Effects of School-based Social Information Processing Interventions on Aggressive Behavior: Part I: Universal Programs
A Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review

Effects of School-based Social Information Processing Interventions on Aggressive Behavior: Part II: Selected or Indicated Pull-out Programs
A Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review

Effects of School-Based Intervention Programs on Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M., & Derzon, J.H.

Efficacy of Child Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions for Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis
Bennett, D.S., & Gibbons, T.A.

Efficacy of Psychological, Educational, and Behavioral Treatment: Confirmation from Meta-Analysis
Lipsey, M. E., & Wilson, D.B.

Meta-Analysis of Intervention Research with Problem Behavior: Treatment Validity and Standards of Practice
Scotti, J.R., Evans, I.M., Meyer, L.H., & Walker, P.

Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Decrease Disruptive Classroom Behavior in Public Education Settings
Stage, S.A., & Quiroz, D.R.

Meta-Analysis of Social Skill Interventions for Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders
Quinn, M.M., Kavale, K.A., Mathur, S.R., Rutherford , R.B., & Forness, S.R.

Peer-Mediated Intervention Studies on Academic Achievement for Students with EBD: A Review
Ryan, J.B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M.H.

Rational Emotive Therapy with Children and Adolescents
Gonzalez, J.E., Nelson, R.J.,Gutkin, T.B., Saunders, A., Galloway, A., & Shwery, C.S.

Social Skills Interventions with Students with Emotional and Behavioral Problems: A Quantitative Synthesis of Single-Subject Research
Mathur, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Quinn, M.M., Forness, S.R., & Rutherford, R.B.

Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities

Computer Assisted Instruction in Reading for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Research Synthesis
Hall, T.E., Hughes , C.A. , & Filbert, M.

Direct Instruction | Adams, G., & Carnine, D.

Do Special Education Interventions Improve Learning of Secondary Content? A Meta-Analysis
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E.

Effects of Instruction in Solving Mathematical Word Problems for Students with Learning Problems: A Meta-Analysis
Xin, Y.P., & Jitendra, A.K.

For Which Students with Learning Disabilities Are Self-Concept Interventions Effective?
Elbaum, B., & Vaughn S.

Graphic Organizers and Their Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with LD: A Synthesis of Research
Kim, A-H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S.

Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-AnalysisAn accenting red star, to show a new resource on NICHCY's website
Gersten, R., Chard, D.J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S.K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J.

Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities, 1995–2006: A Meta-Analysis
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A

Reading Differences Between Low-Achieving Students With and Without Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, PG., & Lipsey, M.W.

Reading Research for Students with LD: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Outcomes
Swanson, H.L.

Research on Interventions for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Related to Higher-Order Processing
Swanson, H.L.

School-Based Interventions to Enhance the Self-Concept of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Elbaum, B., & Vaughn, S.

Selective Synthesis of Intervention Research for Students with Learning Disabilities
Swanson, H.L., & Carson, C.

Social Skill Deficits and Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R.

Social Skills Interventions for Individuals with Learning Disabilities
Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M.P.

Students with Learning Disabilities and the Process of Writing: A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.

Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building Reading Fluency with Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities
Chard, D.J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B-J.

Treating Social Skill Deficits in Children with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of the Research
Forness, S.R., & Kavale, K.A.

Math Interventions

Effects of Instruction in Solving Mathematical Word Problems for Students with Learning Problems: A Meta-Analysis
Xin, Y.P., & Jitendra, A.K.

 Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-AnalysisAn accenting red star, to show a new resource on NICHCY's website
Gersten, R., Chard, D.J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S.K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J.

Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Needs
Kroesbergen, E.H., & Van Luit, J.E.H.

Synthesis of Empirical Research on Teaching Mathematics to Low Achieving Students
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D.

Meta-Analysis on Teaching Mathematics to Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. Y.

Reading Interventions

Computer Assisted Instruction in Reading for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Research Synthesis
Hall, T.E., Hughes , C.A. , & Filbert, M.

Effect of Computer-Assisted Instruction on Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analysis
Soe, K., Koki, S., & Chang, J.

Effective Reading Programs for English Language Learners. A Best- Evidence Synthesis
Slavin, R.E., & Cheung, A.

Experimental Intervention Research on Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes
Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M.

Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading
Therrien, W.J.

Graphic Organizers and Their Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with LD: A Synthesis of Research
Kim, A-H., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S.

How Effective Are One-to-One Tutoring Programs in Reading for Elementary Students at Risk for Reading Failure? A Meta-Analysis of the Intervention Research
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Moody, S.W.

How Reading Outcomes of Students with Disabilities Are Related to Instructional Grouping Formats: A Meta-Analytic Review
Elbaum, B., Vaughn , S., Hughes, M.T. , Moody, S.W., & Schumm , J.S.

Instructing Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: A Component and Composite Analysis
Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M.

Joint Book Reading Makes Success in Learning to Read: A Meta-Analysis on Intergenerational Transmission of Literacy
Bus, A.G., Ijzendoorn van, M.H., & Pellegrini, A.D.

Meta-Analysis and Review of Sight Word Research and Its Implications for Teaching Functional Reading to Individuals with Moderate and Severe Disabilities
Browder, D.M., & Xin, Y.P.

Phonological Awareness and Early Reading: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Training Studies
Bus, A.G., & Van Ijzendoorn, M.H.

Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities, 1995–2006: A Meta-Analysis
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A

Reading Differences Between Low-Achieving Students With and Without Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, PG., & Lipsey, M.W.

Reading Research for Students with LD: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Outcomes
Swanson, H.L.

Searching for the Best Model for Instructing Students with Learning Disabilities
Swanson, H.L.

Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building Reading Fluency with Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities
Chard, D.J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B-J.

Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M.

Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Chapter 2: Alphabetics
National Reading Panel

Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Chapter 3: Fluency
National Reading Panel

What We Know About Correlates of Reading
Hammil, D.

Whole Language and Language Experience Approaches for Beginning Reading: A Quantitative Research Synthesis
Stahl, S.A., & Miller, P.D.

Writing Interventions

Students with Learning Disabilities and the Process of Writing: A Meta-Analysis of SRSD Studies
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.

Teaching Expressive Writing to Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Gersten, R., & Baker, S.

Social Skills Interventions

Children’s Social Problem-Solving Skills, Behavioral Adjustment, and Interventions: A Meta-Analysis Evaluating Theory and Practice
Denham, S.A. & Almeida, M.C.

Effects of Training Social Competence in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Evaluation Studies
Beelman, A., Pfingsten, U., & Losel, F.

Meta-Analysis of School-Based Social Skills Interventions for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bellini, S., Peters, J., Benner, L., & Hopf, A.

Meta-Analysis of Social Skill Interventions for Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders
Quinn, M.M., Kavale, K.A., Mathur, S.R., Rutherford , R.B., & Forness, S.R.

Social Skills Interventions with Students with Emotional and Behavioral Problems: A Quantitative Synthesis of Single-Subject Research
Mathur, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Quinn, M.M., Forness, S.R., & Rutherford, R.B.

Social Skill Deficits and Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R.

Social Skills Interventions for Individuals with Learning Disabilities
Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M.P.

Treating Social Skill Deficits in Children with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of the Research
Forness, S.R., & Kavale, K.A.


Other Studies

Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis
Slavin, R. E.

Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis
Slavin, R.E.

Approaches to Parental Involvement for Improving the Academic Performance of Elementary School Age Children
Nye, C., Turner, H. M., & Schwartz, J. B.

Are More Intensive Early Intervention Programs More Effective? A Literature Review
Innocenti, M.S., & White, K.R.

Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research
Scruggs, T.A., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K.A.

Do Special Education Interventions Improve Learning of Secondary Content? A Meta-Analysis
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. E.

Effective Interventions in Dropout Prevention: A Research Synthesis—The Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions on Dropout for Youth with Disabilities
Cobb, B., Sample, P., Alwell, M., & Johns, N.

Effects of Interventions to Promote Self-Determination for Individuals with Disabilities
Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D.W., & Wood, W.M.

Effects of Technology-Based Interventions on Academic Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities
Dugan, J.J., Cobb, R.B., & Alwell, M.

Effects of Test Accommodation on Test Performance: A Review of the Literature
Sireci, S.G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S.

Efficacy of Early Intervention Programs: A Meta-Analysis
Casto, G., & Mastropieri, M.A.

Empirical Analysis of Drill Ratio Research: Refining the Instructional Level for Drill Tasks
Burns, M.A.

Helping At-Risk Students Meet Standards: A Synthesis of Evidence-Based Classroom Practices
Barley, Z., Lauer, P.A., Arens, S.A., Apthorp, H.S., Englert, K.S., Snow, D., & Akiba, M.

Impact of Modality on Skills Training for Youth with Externalizing Problems: A Meta-Analysis
Ang, R.P., Woldbeck, T.F., & Hughes, J.N.

Making the Most of Summer School: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review
Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J.C., & Muhlenbruck, L.

Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research: Where Are the Data?
Murawski, W.W., & Swanson, H.L.

Meta-Analysis of Outdoor Adventure Programming with Adolescents
Cason, D., & Gillis, H.L.

Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-to-Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research Implemented Models
Burns, M.K., Appleton, J.J., &  Stehouwer, J.D.

Substance Over Style: Assessing the Efficacy of Modality Testing and Teaching
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R.

Synthesizing the Effects of Test Accommodations for Special Education and Limited English Proficient Students
Chiu, C.W.T., & Pearson, P.D.

Title I and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Federal Evaluation Results
Borman, G.D., & Agostino, J.V.

When Should We Begin? A Comprehensive Review of Age of Start in Early Intervention
Kim, Y-W., Innocenti, M., & Kim, J-K.