Anonymous
Anonymous asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago

麻煩各位大大門幫忙翻譯一下,英文閱讀方面,謝謝歐

麻煩各位大大幫忙翻譯一下歐

小弟有些不是很了解如何翻譯是好

所以上來請問各位大大門

謝謝囉

Results

Each child\'s PASS scores as well as the total number correct during baseline and intervention are provided in Table 1. It is apparent from examination of the performance of the various groups of children that the intervention had differential impact on the children. Those children with a cognitive weakness in Planning evidenced change scores of 63% to 338%, with effect sizes ranging from .6 to 2.6. These can be described using Cohen\'s (1988) guidelines of .2, .5, and .8 as small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. Overall, the group with a Planning cognitive weakness evidenced 167% improvement over baseline and an average effect size of 1.4. This amount of improvement brought the children with Planning cognitive weaknesses to a level that was similar to that of the rest of the class. These findings are in contrast to those children with a cognitive weakness in Attention who showed a 46% increase (small effect size of 0.3) and a 39% increase in Successive (0.4 effect size). The performance of children with a cognitive weakness in Simultaneous processing deteriorated slightly, evidencing a -10% change and -0.2 effect size). Finally, children without a cognitive weakness improved 16% from baseline to intervention with a small 0.2 effect size. These data show that children with a Planning cognitive weakness benefited from the instruction designed to help them be more planful. Those who received the planning-based instruction who were not low in planning did not show the same pattern of improvement.

1 Answer

Rating
  • Favorite Answer

    Results

    Each child's PASS scores as well as the total number correct during baseline and intervention are provided in Table 1. It is apparent from examination of the performance of the various groups of children that the intervention had differential impact on the children. Those children with a cognitive weakness in Planning evidenced change scores of 63% to 338%, with effect sizes ranging from .6 to 2.6. These can be described using Cohen's (1988) guidelines of .

    結果

    每個孩子途徑得分和總數正確的在基線和干涉的時候在表 1 被提供. 它從干涉有了了在孩子上的差別的衝擊的各種不同那群孩子的表現的考試是明顯的。用認知的弱點在計劃方面到 338% 證據 63% 的改變很多的那些孩子, 與效果按規定尺寸製作排列從。6 到 2.6. 這些能被描述使用科恩 (1988) 指導方針。

    These findings are in contrast to those children with a cognitive weakness in Attention who showed a 46% increase (small effect size of 0.3) and a 39% increase in Successive (0.4 effect size).

    2,.5, 和。8 如小的﹐半生熟的,而且分別地大的效果按規定尺寸製作。 全體,團體由於一計劃認知的弱點證據了了在基線和平均的效果上的 167% 進步大小 1.4. 進步的這一數量由於計劃對一個與班級的其餘者的類似的水準的認知弱點帶了了孩子。

    These findings are in contrast to those children with a cognitive weakness in Attention who showed a 46% increase (small effect size of 0.3) and a 39% increase in Successive (0.4 effect size). The performance of children with a cognitive weakness in Simultaneous processing deteriorated slightly, evidencing a -10% change and -0.2 effect size)

    這些調查結果是與用顯示 46% 增加 (小效果大小 0.3) 和 39% 的增加連續的 (0.4 效果大小)的注意的認知的弱點那些孩子相反. 和認知的弱點孩子的表現在同時的處理中些微地惡化,證據 -10% 改變和 -0.2 效果大小)

    Finally, children without a cognitive weakness improved 16% from baseline to intervention with a small 0.2 effect size. These data show that children with a Planning cognitive weakness benefited from the instruction designed to help them be more planful. Those who received the planning-based instruction who were not low in planning did not show the same pattern of improvement.

    最後,沒有認知的弱點的孩子從基線到干涉以小的 0.2 效果大小改良了了 16% 。這些資料顯示孩子用一計劃從指導被獲益的認知的弱點設計幫助他們是更多的 planful 。 接受了不對計劃感到低的以計劃為基礎的指導的人們沒有顯示進步的相同典型。

    Source(s): 翻譯機...
    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.