-213-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
The second section of the questionnaire (Item 6~10), used to answer the second
research question, aimed to understand the partic
ipants’ perceptions toward the features
of the two types of repeated reading intervention. The results were shown in Table 2.
Group
Item
CARR group
PARR group
t
p
M
SD
M
SD
6
4.27
0.76 4.13
1.14
0.489
0.627
7
4.32
0.83 4.09
1.24
0.729
0.47
8
4.45
0.73 3.61
1.19
2.839
0.007*
9
4.41
0.79 3.70
1.10
2.475
0.017*
10
4.32
0.83 3.91
1.04
1.097
0.279
average
4.33
0.80 3.88
1.14
1.525
0.28
*
p
< .05
Table 2 The Participants’ Perceptions toward the Features of the Two Types of Repeated Reading Int
ervention
For the second section of the questionnaire, the average mean for the CARR group was
4.33, while the average mean for the PARR group was 3.88. Although the average mean
for the CARR group was higher than the average mean for the PARR group, the statistical
analysis did not reveal significant differences between the two groups. Regarding the
individual item, results of independent samples t-test
analyses showed significant
differences between the two groups’ perceptions toward Item 8 (
t
= 2.839,
p
= 0.007)
and Item 9 (
t
= 2.475,
p
= 0.017). For Item 8, with a mean score of 4.45 the CARR
group highly agreed that by clicking the unknown words during reading and by hearing
the
Read Naturally
software pronounce the clicked words their oral reading performance
improved. In addition, for Item 9, with a mean score of 4.41, the CARR group highly
agreed that oral reading the story along with the computer helped them comprehend the
target story.
Group
Item
CARR group
PARR group
t
p
M
SD
M
SD
11
4.27
0.88
3.87
1.05
1.385
0.173
12
4.23
0.81
3.65
1.22
1.843
0.072
13
4.27
0.82
3.57
1.03
2.523
0.015*
14
4.23
0.81
3.39
1.40
2.427
0.019*
15
4.18
0.90
3.87
1.18
0.992
0.327
16
4.00
0.87
3.78
0.90
0.821
0.416
17
4.27
0.93
3.52
1.27
2.245
0.03*
18
3.95
0.84
3.17
1.19
2.524
0.015*
19
4.23
0.97
3.26
1.21
2.938
0.005*
20
4.36
0.95
3.52
1.50
2.231
0.031*
21
4.18
0.90
3.61
1.46
1.566
0.125
average
4.61
0.96
3.92
1.34
2.149
0.122
*
p
< .05
Table 3 The Participants’ Attitudes toward the Two Types of
Repeated Reading Intervention
The third section of the questionnaire (Item 11 to 21) was
used to answer the third
research quesiton. According to the respective average mean score of 4.62 and 3.92,
both groups were found to have positive attitudes toward the two types of intervention
and considered them beneficial to their oral reading. In general, both groups like the
respective repeated reading training they received. Furthermore,
the CARR group liked
the word reading function provided in
Read Naturally
, while the PARR group liked their
peers to help them read the words correctly.
-214-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
However, independent samples
t
-test analyses revealed there were significant differences
between the two groups’ perceptions toward decreasing difficulties, increasing motivat
ion
and increasing confidence in oral reading after receiving the intervention as shown in
Item 13 (
t
= 2.523,
p
= 0.015), Item 14 (
t
= 2.427,
p
= 0.019), Item 17 (
t
= 2.245,
p
=
0.03), Item 18 (
t
= 2.524,
p
= 0.015), Item 19 (
t
= 2.938,
p
= 0.005) and Item 20 (
t
=
2.231,
p
= 0.031).
For Item 13, with a mean score of 4.27, the CARR group
highly agreed that the
intervention they received could decrease their difficulties during oral reading.
Concerning Item 14, with a mean score of 4.23 the CARR group highly agreed that the
intervention could increase their oral reading motivation. As for Item 17, with a mean
score of 4.27 the CARR group considered themselves to have confidence in future oral
reading practive. Regarding Item 18, with a mean score of 3.95 the CARR group was
found to be willing to participate in oral reading activities in
class after receiving the
intervention. As for Item 19, with a mean score of 4.23 the CARR group considered
themselves to have more confidence in oral reading of new stories after receiving the
intervention. Moreover, for Item 20, with a mean score of 4.36 the CARR group was
found to be willing to continue taking the intervention.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: