Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers. NCSER 2014-3000. (2014, unknown): “54 Hoover and Gough (1990); Snow (2001). 55 NICHD (2000); Torgesen, (2002).”
Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis (2014, background): “Glenberg [41] indicates that elementary school students learn a story better when they use their”
Using Concreteness in Education: Real Problems, Potential Solutions (2009, background): “The work of Glenberg and colleagues (e.g., Brown & Glenberg, 2007; Glenberg, Brown, & Levin, 2007; Glenberg, Jaworski, Rischal, & Levin, 2007 ) supports the hypothesis that physical manipulatives can be effective when they are used in structured environments.”
How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters (2011, methodology): “In fact, the data reported above from Glenberg et al. (2007b) were collected when children were trained and tested on different scenarios.”
A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives (2013, background): “Reading and listening strategy research further supports the importance of instructional guidance when using concrete manipulatives (Glenberg, Brown, & Levin, 2007; Marley, Levin, & Glenberg, 2007, 2010; Marley et al., 2011).”