|
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication
The significantly higher positive perceptions of the participants receiving the CARR is
likely due to the one-on-one use of the
Read Naturally
software, individualized pace, and
the vocabulary audio pronunciation function provided by the software. As for the
functions of the correct pronunciation of words the two types of repeated reading
intervention provided for, the participants were found to have more confidence in the
pronunciation provided by the
Read Naturally
software than that provided by their peers.
Additionally
, the participants’ perceptions toward t
he difficulties decreasing, motivation
and confidence increasing of oral reading revealed that the participants prefer to the
individual pace and one-on-one use of computer during oral reading practice. Hence, the
CARR group was found to held higher positive perceptions toward improvement of their
reading rate and comprehension after receiving the intervention than the PARR group.
However, the participants’ respective perceptions toward the three sections of the
questionnaires including the effectiveness, features and their attitudes toward the
intervention were both positive. Therefore, the result suggests that both types of
repeated reading intervention are accepted by the participating EFL young learners and
are appropriate to be used to enhance their oral reading fluency and reading
comprehension.
References
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
Gibson, L., Cartledge, G., & Keyes, S. E. (2011).
A preliminary investigation of
supplemental computer-assisted reading instruction on the oral reading fluency and
comprehension of first-grade African American urban students.
Journal of Behavioral
Education, 20(4), 260-282.
Gorsuch, G., & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and comprehension using
repeated reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching
Research, 14(1), 27-59.
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
24, 44-69.
-215-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
Hapstack, J. A., & Tracey, D. H. (2007). Effects of assisted-repeated reading on students
of varying reading ability: A single-subject experimental research study. Reading
Horizons Journal, 47(4), 315-334.
Hudson, R. F., Mercer, C. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A
paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and
instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.
Hung, Y.F. (2012). The effects of repeated reading on word recognition and reading
fluency of fourth graders in Taiwan (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taipei
University of Education, Taiwan.
Ihnot, C. (1992). Read Naturally. St Paul, MN: Read Naturally.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3.
Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Journal of
Investigative Surgery, 26(2), 127-146.
Kuo, F. L., & Chiang, H. K. (2012). Effects of computer-assisted vs. teacher-assisted
repeated reading practices on L2 early literacy development. In J. Colpaert, A. Aerts, W.
C., Wu, & Y. C. Chao (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 XVth International CALL Research
Conference (pp. 357-360). Taichung, Taiwan: Providence University.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lo, Y. Y., Cooke, N. L., & Starling, A. L. P. (2011). Using a repeated reading program to
improve generalization of oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children,
34(1), 115-140.
Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading
fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 278-283.
Mustafa,
BAŞARAN. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2287-2290.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.
Oddo, M., Barnett, D. W., Hawkins, R. O., & Musti-Rao, S. (2010). Reciprocal peer
tutoring and repeated reading: Increase practicality using student groups. Psychology in
the Schools, 47(8), 842-858.
Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T. V., & Magpuri
‐
Lavell, T. (2012). Is fluent, expressive reading
important for high school readers?. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 67-76.
Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Regional Educational Laboratory at
Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Rasinski, T. V. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy,
automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.
-216-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65(8),
516-522.
Samuel, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 32-39.
Savaiano, M. E., & Hatton, D. D. (2013). Using repeated reading to improve reading
speed and comprehension in students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 107(2), 93-106.
Schrauben, J.
E. ( 2010). Prosody’s contribution to fluency: An examination of the theory
of automatic information processing. Reading Psychology, 31, 82-92.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
-217-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
