↓ Skip to main content

The supporting effects of high luminous conditions on grade 3 oral reading fluency scores

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
The supporting effects of high luminous conditions on grade 3 oral reading fluency scores
Published in
SpringerPlus, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-53
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael S Mott, Daniel H Robinson, Thea H Williams-Black, Susan S McClelland

Abstract

The universality of the impact of daylight is a common thread that defines humanity. Day light affects us in a variety of ways -visually, psychologically and biologically. Artificial lighting research has explored ways in which artificial lighting may substitute for daylight and enhance human health and wellbeing. Recently, a study by Mott et al. 2011 found that the usage of high intensity, yet glare free lighting, (referred to as Focus light setting) during reading instruction increased grade 3 students' oral reading fluency (ORF) scores, a key index of reading comprehension. The current study further explored the effect of Focus lighting during literacy instruction with at-risk grade 3 students (n = 172). Over the course of an academic year, the Focus lighting students increased their ORF scores at a greater rate than did the Normal lighting students. These findings, in combination with earlier lighting research, suggest that artificial lighting plays a key role in helping to create an effective learning environment to ensure children reach their full potential. More systematic research, however, is needed to understand the mechanisms by which artificial lighting may contribute to the learning environment: visually, biologically and/or psychologically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 18 34%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,309,583
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#931
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,369
of 306,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#39
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.