Explore the vast range of titles available.

Readers will learn about makerspaces, where makers come together to exchange ideas and share tools for creating.

This study presents the development and validation of the Record of Decision-Making (RODM), a formative assessment designed to measure beginning readers’ use of phonic elements to decode unknown words while reading. Grounded in overlapping wave theory and theories of early reading development, the RODM captures adaptive strategy use during oral reading, including rereading and subword analysis. Using multifaceted Rasch modeling, the authors demonstrate that RODM scores align with a unidimensional reading proficiency scale and reflect predictable patterns of strategy use across proficiency levels. Findings indicate that as reading proficiency increases, students employ a broader range of phonic elements and shift from basic strategies (e.g., initial letter use) to more sophisticated ones (e.g., medial and final letter use). Additionally, proficient readers exhibit greater self-correction and reduced reliance on rereading. Generalizability analysis yielded strong interrater reliability and accuracy with minimal training, suggesting its practical utility for frequent classroom use. Implications for instruction include the need to teach flexible, efficient decoding strategies that adapt to task difficulty. Future research should explore score consistency with educators in classroom settings and instructional impact.

Introduction With the continuous rise of social media usage, more patients are looking online for health-related information. TikTok is one of the fastest-growing video-based social media platforms, but the quality of its ophthalmologic content, at a comprehensive level, has not been previously analyzed. We aim to explore and characterize popular ophthalmology content on TikTok, including the presence of misinformation. Methods Between April 16 and May 22, 2023, 37 different ophthalmology-relevant hashtags were queried on TikTok, and the top 20 most-liked videos per hashtag were analyzed. The quality of educational videos was graded on understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-A/V). Trends in creator identity, content type, engagement metrics, misinformation presence, and TikTok verification status were also assessed. Results The 37 ophthalmology-related hashtags yielded 723 videos comprising 3.806 billion views. A minority of videos were created by ophthalmologists (16.9%) and eyecare providers (35.1%), while the majority were created by non-healthcare providers (55.0%). The most common types of videos identified were primarily related to personal experiences (35.8%) and education (38.0%). Amongst educational videos, mean PEMAT-A/V understandability and actionability scores were 88.1% and 50.6%, respectively. Misinformation was found in 5.4% of all videos, comprising 4.8% of all likes, 4.7% of all comments, and 11.7% of all bookmarks. Its presence was significantly correlated with content created by non-healthcare providers ( p  < 0.001) and received a disproportionately higher percentage of bookmarks. Conclusions This was the largest, most comprehensive evaluation of ophthalmologic content on TikTok. A significant portion of popular ophthalmologic content on TikTok is created by non-eyecare providers and contains misinformation. Our findings confirm the need for ophthalmologists to create more engaging, actionable, and factual educational content to combat misinformation adoption.

For many teachers, the term scaffolding has come to mean providing just the right amount of help when a student encounters difficulty. However, there is another facet of scaffolding that has been largely ignored, and that is making decisions about what to focus on to help the student. In this article, new research findings are shared about both types of scaffolding and the role they play in helping beginning readers solve new words while reading connected text. Suggestions are provided for how teachers can use these findings to more effectively scaffold young students’ word solving attempts as they read a new book with teacher help.

The authors used nationally based, random sample data from three different years (2009–2010, 2011-2012, and 2014-2015) for nearly 20,000 first-grade students (n = 9,760, 3,657, and 3,121, respectively) to examine long-reported inadequacies of a commonly used early literacy assessment tool, the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA), chief among them the skewness and nonequal interval nature of the scores that are obtained on its six individual tasks. Such inadequacies prevented the individual task scores from being used for program evaluation, screening, and progress monitoring. To mitigate these OSELA limitations, the authors employed Rasch analysis to create a scale that can be used to track a student's literacy achievement based on the combination of OSELA task scores. Dimensionality analyses revealed that the OSELA measures one factor, which supported the decision to combine the individual tasks to compute one total score. The equal-interval total score was normally distributed at the beginning, middle, and end of first grade. Further, the authors conducted a predictive validation study of the total score to identify a range of cut scores that can be used in the fall of first grade to predict reading failure by year end. The authors maintain that the total score provides a more precise and efficient means of screening young students for reading failure and evaluating their progress over time. Implications for using the total score to make screening decisions and measure early reading progress are discussed.

The authors used nationally based, random sample data from three different years (2009-2010, 2011-2012, and 2014-2015) for nearly 20,000 first-grade students (n = 9,760, 3,657, and 3,121, respectively) to examine long-reported inadequacies of a commonly used early literacy assessment tool, the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA), chief among them the skewness and nonequal interval nature of the scores that are obtained on its six individual tasks. Such inadequacies prevented the individual task scores from being used for program evaluation, screening, and progress monitoring. To mitigate these OSELA limitations, the authors employed Rasch analysis to create a scale that can be used to track a student's literacy achievement based on the combination of OSELA task scores. Dimensionality analyses revealed that the OSELA measures one factor, which supported the decision to combine the individual tasks to compute one total score. The equal-interval total score was normally distributed at the beginning, middle, and end of first grade. Further, the authors conducted a predictive validation study of the total score to identify a range of cut scores that can be used in the fall of first grade to predict reading failure by year end. The authors maintain that the total score provides a more precise and efficient means of screening young students for reading failure and evaluating their progress over time. Implications for using the total score to make screening decisions and measure early reading progress are discussed. Los autores usaron datos de muestras nacionales aleatorias de tres años diferentes (2009-2010, 2011-2012, y 2014-2015) de casi 20,000 estudiantes de primer grado (n = 9,760, 3, 657, y 3,121 respectivamente) para examinar unas insuficiencias expuestas desde hace tiempo en un instrumento de evaluación de la alfabetización temprana usado comúnmente, el Estudio de Observación del Logro de Alfabetización Temprana (OSELA, por sus siglas en ingles), en especial la oblicuidad y la naturaleza desigual de los intervalos de los valores obtenidos en sus seis tareas individuales. Tales insuficiencias no permitían que las calificaciones de las tareas individuales fueran usadas para evaluar el programa, para seleccionar, y para supervisar el progreso. Para mitigar estas limitaciones de OSELA, los autores usaron el análisis Rasch para crear una escala que se puede usar para seguir los logros de alfabetismo del estudiante basándose en la combinación de las calificaciones de las tareas OSELA. Los análisis de dimensión revelaron que el OSELA mide un factor, lo cual apoyo la decisión de combinar las tareas individuales para calcular una calificación total. La calificación total de los intervalos iguales fue distribuida por lo general al principio, a la mitad y al final del primer grado. Aún más, los autores hicieron un estudio de validación profética de la calificación total para identificar una gama de calificaciones que se pueden usar en el otoño del primer grado para predecir el fracaso en la lectura antes del final de año. Los autores mantienen que la calificación total proporciona un medio más preciso y eficiente para seleccionar estudiantes jóvenes en peligro de fracasar en la lectura y evaluar su progreso a través del tiempo. Se discuten las implicaciones para el uso de la calificación total para tomar decisiones de selección y medir el progreso de la lectura temprana. استخدÙ... اÙ,,Ù...ؤÙ,,ÙÙ^Ù[dagger] عÙSÙ[dagger]Ø© بÙSاÙ[dagger]ات عشÙ^ائÙSØ© عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] اÙ,,Ù...ستÙ^Ù[per thousand] اÙ,,Ù^Ø·Ù[dagger]ÙS تستÙ[dagger]د عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] Ø«Ù,,اث سÙ[dagger]Ù^ات Ù...ختÙ,,ÙØ© (2009-2010ØOE 2011-2012ØOE Ù^2014-2015) Ù,,Ù,رابة 20ØOE000 طاÙ,,باÙ< Ù...Ù[dagger] اÙ,,ص٠اÙ,,Ø£Ù^Ù,, (Ù[dagger] = 9760ØOE 3657ØOE Ù^ 3121ØOE عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] اÙ,,تÙ^اÙ,,ÙS) Ù,,Ùحص اÙ,,Ù,صÙ^ر اÙ,,Ù...ÙبÙZÙ,,Ù'غ عÙ[dagger]Ù[Dagger] Ùأداة تستخدÙ... عادة Ù,,تÙ,ÙSÙSÙ... \"Ù...راÙ,بة Ù...سح اÙ,,تعÙ,,ÙSÙ... ÙÙS Ù^اÙ,,Ù,ت اÙ,,Ù...بÙر\" Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA)ØOE Ù...Ù[dagger] Ø£Ù[Dagger]Ù...Ù[Dagger]ا اÙ,,اÙ,,تÙ^اء Ù^طبÙSعة ÙÙ^اصÙ,, اÙ,,Ù[dagger]تائج اÙ,,غÙSر Ù...تساÙ^ÙSØ© Ù^اÙ,,تÙS ÙSتÙ... اÙ,,حصÙ^Ù,, عÙ,,ÙSÙ[Dagger]ا Ù...Ù[dagger] ستة Ù...Ù[Dagger]اÙ... ÙردÙSØ©. Ù...Ù[dagger]عت Ù[Dagger]Ø°Ù[Dagger] اÙ,,Ù,صÙ^ر عشرات اÙ,,Ù...Ù[Dagger]Ù...ات اÙ,,ÙردÙSØ© Ù...Ù[dagger] Ø£Ù[dagger] تستخدÙ... Ù,,تÙ,ÙSÙSÙ... اÙ,,براÙ...جØOE Ù^اÙ,,غربÙ,,Ø©ØOE Ù^Ù...تابعة اÙ,,تÙ,دÙ... Ù^Ù,,تخÙÙSÙ Ù...Ù[dagger] Ù,ÙSÙ^د OSELAØOE استخدÙ... اÙ,,Ù...ؤÙ,,ÙÙ^Ù[dagger] تحÙ,,ÙSÙ,, راش (Rasch) Ù,,Ø¥Ù[dagger]شاء Ù...Ù,ÙSاس ÙSÙ...ÙÙ[dagger] استخداÙ...Ù[Dagger] Ù,,تتبع Ø¥Ù[dagger]جاز تعÙ,,Ù... اÙ,,طاÙ,,ب عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] أساس Ù...زÙSج Ù...Ù[dagger] Ù[dagger]تائج اÙ,,Ù...Ù[Dagger]Ù...ات OSELA. ÙØ´Ùت اÙ,,تحÙ,,ÙSÙ,,ات اÙ,,بÙعÙ'دÙnÙSÙ'Ø© Ø£Ù[dagger] OSELA تÙ,ÙSس عاÙ...Ù,, Ù^احدØOE اÙ,,Ø°ÙS Ø£ÙSد Ù,رار اÙ,,جÙ...ع بÙSÙ[dagger] اÙ,,Ù...Ù[Dagger]اÙ... اÙ,,ÙردÙSØ© Ù,,حساب Ù...جÙ...Ù^ع Ù[dagger]Ù,اط Ù^احدة. تÙ... عادة تÙ^زÙSع Ù...جÙ...Ù^ع اÙ,,Ù[dagger]Ù,اط اÙ,,Ù...تساÙ^ÙSØ© اÙ,,ÙاصÙ,, اÙ,,زÙ...Ù[dagger]ÙSØOE ÙÙS بداÙSØ© Ù^Ù^سط Ù^Ù[dagger]Ù[Dagger]اÙSØ© اÙ,,ص٠اÙ,,Ø£Ù^Ù,,. Ù^عÙ,,اÙ^Ø© عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] Ø°Ù,,ÙØOE أجرÙ[per thousand] اÙ,,Ù...ؤÙ,,ÙÙ^Ù[dagger] دراسة تÙ[dagger]بؤÙSØ© تحÙ,ÙSÙ,ÙSØ© عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] اÙ,,Ù...جÙ...Ù^ع اÙ,,عاÙ... Ù,,Ù,,تعر٠عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] Ù...دÙ[per thousand] Ù...Ù[dagger] اÙ,,درجات اÙ,,Ù,طعÙSØ© اÙ,,تÙS ÙSÙ...ÙÙ[dagger] استخداÙ...Ù[Dagger]ا ÙÙS ÙصÙ,, اÙ,,خرÙSÙ Ù,,Ù,,ص٠اÙ,,Ø£Ù^Ù,, Ù,,تÙ[dagger]بؤ ÙØ´Ù,, اÙ,,Ù,راءة بحÙ,,Ù^Ù,, Ù[dagger]Ù[Dagger]اÙSØ© اÙ,,عاÙ... ÙSدعÙS اÙ,,Ù...ؤÙ,,ÙÙ^Ù[dagger] Ø£Ù[dagger] اÙ,,Ù...جÙ...Ù^ع اÙ,,عاÙ... ÙSÙ^Ùر Ù^سÙSÙ,,Ø© Ø£Ùثر دÙ,Ø© Ù^ÙÙاءة Ù,,Ùحص ÙØ´Ù,, Ù,راءة اÙ,,Ø·Ù,,اب اÙ,,شباب Ù^تÙ,ÙSÙSÙ... اÙ,,تÙ,دÙ... اÙ,,Ù...حرز عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] Ù...ر اÙ,,زÙ...Ù[dagger]. تتÙ... Ù...Ù[dagger]اÙ,شة اÙ,,آثار اÙ,,Ù...ترتبة عÙ,,Ù[per thousand] استخداÙ... اÙ,,Ù...جÙ...Ù^ع اÙ,,عاÙ... Ù,,اتخاذ Ù,رارات غربÙ,,Ø© Ù^Ù,ÙSاس اÙ,,تÙ,دÙ... ÙÙS اÙ,,Ù,راءة ÙÙS Ù^Ù,ت Ù...بÙر. Ð~з наÑ[dagger]ионалÑOEной базÑ< даннÑ<Ñ... авÑ,оÑ[euro]Ñ< взÑли ÑлÑÑ[Dagger]айнÑÑZ вÑ<боÑ[euro]кÑ, вклÑZÑ[Dagger]ив Ñ,Ñда поÑ[Dagger]Ñ,и 20000 ÑÑ[Dagger]еников пеÑ[euro]вого клаÑÑа (9760 за 2009-2010, 3657 за 2011-2012 и 3121 за 2014-15 ÑÑ[Dagger]ебнÑ<й год), Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,обÑ< иÑÑледоваÑ,ÑOE давно извеÑÑ,нÑ<е изÑSÑнÑ< в повÑемеÑÑ,но иÑполÑOEзÑемом инÑÑ,Ñ[euro]ÑменÑ,е OSELA, коÑ,оÑ[euro]Ñ<й ÑÑÑ[per thousand]еÑÑ,вÑеÑ, Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð¾Ñ[dagger]енки ÑÑ,Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð³Ñ[euro]амоÑ,ноÑÑ,и. Ð\"лавнÑ<ми изÑSÑнами ÑвлÑÑZÑ,ÑÑ Ð¿ÐµÑ[euro]ÐµÐºÐ¾Ñ Ð¸ неÑ[euro]авнÑ<е инÑ,еÑ[euro]валÑ< Ð¼ÐµÐ¶Ð´Ñ Ñ,еÑÑ,иÑ[euro]ованиÑми, Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,о ведеÑ, к иÑкажениÑZ Ñ[euro]езÑлÑOEÑ,аÑ,ов по вÑем Ñ^еÑÑ,и задаÑ[Dagger]ам, пÑ[euro]едÑÑ,авленнÑ<м в OSELA. Ð~з-за ÑÑ,иÑ... иÑкажений полÑÑ[Dagger]еннÑ<е Ñ^колÑOEниками баллÑ< не могÑÑ, бÑ<Ñ,ÑOE иÑполÑOEзованÑ< Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð¾Ñ[dagger]ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ñамой пÑ[euro]огÑ[euro]аммÑ<, Ð´Ð»Ñ ÑкÑ[euro]ининга и мониÑ,оÑ[euro]инга ÑÑ,Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð³Ñ[euro]амоÑ,ноÑÑ,и. ЧÑ,обÑ< нивелиÑ[euro]оваÑ,ÑOE ÑÑ,и пÑ[euro]облемÑ< авÑ,оÑ[euro]Ñ< иÑполÑOEзовали анализ РаÑ^а: Ñ^кала, позволÑÑZÑ[per thousand]Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ñ,ÑледиÑ,ÑOE Ð´Ð¸Ð½Ð°Ð¼Ð¸ÐºÑ Ð³Ñ[euro]амоÑ,ноÑÑ,и ÑÑ[Dagger]еника, бÑ<ла Ñоздана на оÑнове комбинаÑ[dagger]ии баллов, полÑÑ[Dagger]еннÑ<Ñ... в Ñ[euro]амкаÑ... OSELA. ÐoeеÑ,Ñ[euro]иÑ[Dagger]еÑкий анализ подÑ,веÑ[euro]дил, Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,о OSELA измеÑ[euro]ÑеÑ, один Ñ,,акÑ,оÑ[euro], Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,о дало оÑнование обÑSединиÑ,ÑOE оÑ,делÑOEнÑ<е задаÑ[Dagger]и Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´ÑÑ[Dagger]еÑ,а обÑ[per thousand]его колиÑ[Dagger]еÑÑ,ва баллов. ÐzбÑ[per thousand]ий подÑÑ[Dagger]еÑ, баллов Ñ[euro]аÑпÑ[euro]еделÑлÑÑ Ð¿Ð¾ инÑ,еÑ[euro]валам: в наÑ[Dagger]але, в ÑеÑ[euro]едине и в конÑ[dagger]е пеÑ[euro]вого клаÑÑа. Ð\"алее, авÑ,оÑ[euro]Ñ< пÑ[euro]овели пÑ[euro]огноÑÑ,иÑ[Dagger]еÑкое валидиÑ[euro]ÑÑZÑ[per thousand]ее иÑÑледование обÑ[per thousand]ей ÑÑммÑ< баллов, Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,обÑ< иденÑ,иÑ,,иÑ[dagger]иÑ[euro]оваÑ,ÑOE диапазон изÑSÑÑ,Ñ<Ñ... баллов, коÑ,оÑ[euro]Ñ<е можно иÑполÑOEзоваÑ,ÑOE оÑенÑOEÑZ пеÑ[euro]вого клаÑÑа Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð¿Ñ[euro]едÑÐºÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð½ÐµÑдаÑ[Dagger] в Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,ении к конÑ[dagger]Ñ Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ð°. ÐnвÑ,оÑ[euro]Ñ< ÑÑ,веÑ[euro]ждаÑZÑ,, Ñ[Dagger]Ñ,о обÑ[per thousand]ий подÑÑ[Dagger]еÑ, баллов обеÑпеÑ[Dagger]иваеÑ, более Ñ,оÑ[Dagger]нÑ<е и дейÑÑ,веннÑ<е ÑпоÑобÑ< ÑкÑ[euro]ининга младÑ^иÑ... Ñ^колÑOEников - помогаеÑ, опÑ[euro]еделиÑ,ÑOE поÑ,енÑ[dagger]иалÑOEно ÑлабÑ<Ñ... Ñ[Dagger]иÑ,аÑ,елей и оÑ[dagger]ениÑ,ÑOE Ð´Ð¸Ð½Ð°Ð¼Ð¸ÐºÑ ÑÑ,Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð»ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð³Ñ[euro]амоÑ,ноÑÑ,и. Ð' ÑÑ,аÑ,ÑOEе обÑÑждаÑZÑ,ÑÑ Ð²Ð¾Ð·Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ð½Ñ<е поÑледÑÑ,Ð²Ð¸Ñ Ð²Ð²ÐµÐ´ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾Ð±Ñ[per thousand]его подÑÑ[Dagger]еÑ,а баллов. Les auteurs ont utilisé les données d'un échantillon aléatoire à base nationale pour trois années différentes (2009-201

Recent research on scaffolding has examined both the sources of information used and neglected during students' word-solving attempts and the amount of information provided in teachers' word-solving prompts. In this teaching tip, the authors expand the application of such research from one-to-one student–teacher interactions to a guided reading setting. The authors provide examples to illustrate how teachers can critically evaluate students' word-solving attempts and consequently respond to the readers' needs within the guided reading context. The dual focus that the authors suggest, making decisions about both the type and amount of information, provides a framework through which teachers can implement scaffolding during their guided reading lessons.

Recent shifts in policy and practice have brought an increasingly more academic focus to the early grades, evidenced in rising standards and the now widely accepted notion that kindergarten is the new first grade. These views however are mostly supported by teacher and parent self-reports and not by an analysis of literacy achievement data. We created an up-to-date literacy profile for beginning readers using a multiple cohort database that contained achievement data for students at entry to first grade (n = 364,738) in the same schools (n = 2,358) over a 12-year period starting in 2002. Our finding that overall beginning of first-grade reading achievement for both low achieving and more typically achieving students improved measurably between 2002 and 2013 provides empirical support for the growing academic focus in the early grades. However, our findings about the differential nature of that progress for low achieving students compared to those more typically achieving raise new questions and concerns about a growing literacy achievement gap in the early grades.