Toews and Kurth (2019) provide convincing arguments to support their call to action. Their appeal is for research addressing comprehensive literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs that is implemented in general education classrooms. To date, there are no studies addressing this need. We do have an emerging body of research evaluating the effectiveness of multi-component early literacy interventions designed for this population of students (e.g., Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Jones, & Champlin, 2010; Bradford, Shippen, Alberto, Houchins, & Flores, 2006; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, & Baker, 2012; Lemons, Mrachko, Kostewicz, & Paterra, 2012; Whalon, Otaiba, & Delano, 2009). However, as Toews and Kurth (2019) point out, these studies were conducted in separate settings. We also have a group of literacy studies that were implemented in general education settings (e.g., Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, & Miller, 2007; Hudson & Browder, 2014; Ruppar, Afracan, Yang, & Pickett, 2017). However, this research is limited to investigations of components of literacy instruction, rather than comprehensive courses of instruction that address the literacy skill areas identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP) Report (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000) as building blocks for beginning reading—phonological awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. I propose that through the unification of these separately developing lines of research, we can accomplish the desired outcome of Toews and Kurth’s (2019) call to action. To that end, investigations incorporating both comprehensive, research-based literacy instruction and inclusive instructional contexts could be designed as replication-extension studies (Bonett, 2012; Coyne, Cook, & Therrien, 2016; Doabler et al., 2016). These conceptual replication studies would give researchers the freedom to explore various inclusive contextual models for implementing comprehensive early literacy instruction while maintaining intervention fidelity.

中文翻译：

---

在通识教育课堂实施全面的早期识字教学：对 Toews 和 Kurth 的行动呼吁的回应

Toews 和 Kurth（2019 年）提供了令人信服的论据来支持他们的行动呼吁。他们的呼吁是针对在通识教育课堂中实施的具有广泛支持需求的学生进行全面识字教学的研究。迄今为止，还没有研究解决这一需求。我们确实有一个新兴的研究机构来评估为这群学生设计的多成分早期识字干预措施的有效性（例如，Allor、Mathes、Roberts、Jones 和 Champlin，2010 年；Bradford、Shippen、Alberto、Houchins 和 Flores , 2006; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, & Baker, 2012; Lemons, Mrachko, Kostewicz, & Paterra, 2012; Whalon, Otaiba, & Delano, 2009)。然而，正如 Toews 和 Kurth（2019 年）指出的那样，这些研究是在不同的环境中进行的。我们还有一组在普通教育环境中实施的识字研究（例如，Collins、Evans、Creech-Galloway、Karl 和 Miller，2007 年；Hudson 和 Browder，2014 年；Ruppar、Afracan、Yang 和 Pickett，2017 年） . 然而，这项研究仅限于对识字教学组成部分的调查，而不是针对国家阅读小组 (NRP) 报告（国家儿童健康与人类发展研究所 [NICHD]，2000 年）确定的识字技能领域的综合教学课程) 作为开始阅读的基石——语音意识、语音、理解、词汇和流畅性。我建议通过统一这些单独开发的研究路线，我们可以实现 Toews 和 Kurth（2019 年）行动呼吁的预期结果。为此，结合综合性、基于研究的读写教学和包容性教学环境的调查可以设计为复制扩展研究（Bonett，2012 年；Coyne、Cook 和 Therrien，2016 年；Doabler 等人，2016 年）。这些概念复制研究将使研究人员能够自由探索各种包容性情境模型，以在保持干预保真度的同时实施全面的早期识字教学。