O n f e r e n c e

 
Methodology 
Forty-five 3
rd
and 4
th
graders from 8 classes voluntarily participated in an after class 
English program. They were from a public primary school in central Taiwan and have 
learned English since the third grade. With even distribution of 3
rd
and 4
th
graders, the 
participants were divided into two treatment groups with 22 students randomly assigned 
to the CARR group and 23 students assigned to the PARR group. This research design 
allows a direct comparison to see the participants
’
attitudes toward the two learner-
centered assisted repeated reading training. With an average English grades of 84.68 
and 86.65, the statistical analysis showed that the two groups were homogeneous before 
receiving the respective treatment. The participants were given a story 
Fun
, a 46-word 
story, containing various short vowels, chosen from the 
Read Naturally
software program 
(Ihnot, 1992). The 
Read Naturally
software is a computerized reading program 
containing computer modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring. Furthermore, 
the current study spanned for two weeks and lasted for ninety minutes. All the 
participants practiced reading the same story. 
The participants receiving the CARR instruction followed the steps of the 
Read Naturally
software including step 1 
clicking a picture to select the target story
, step 2 
reading the 
key words
, step 3 
reading the story and clicking on the unknown words
, step 4
 reading 
the story repeatedly
, step 5 
reading the story repeatedly until reaching the goal, 
step 6
 
taking the quiz for reading comprehension, 
step 7 
having students read for one minute to 
check their WCPM,
step 8 
practicing reading the word lists
, and step 9 
graphing the cold 
timing score and the pass timing score. 
In contrast, the participants receiving the PARR instruction followed the teaching steps 
(Oddo et al., 2010: 846, 848). The three steps are as follows: 
1.
Four or five participants were divided into a group, and each group had at least a 
relatively high oral reading fluency scorer, a relatively average oral reading 
fluency scorer, and a low oral reading fluency scorer. 
2.
Each participant was given a log that includes their names, the date, the time, the 
tile of the story, and the number of times the story was reread. Moreover, the log 
was used to record words and dates of any miscues committed by the participants 
as well. 
3.
Participants took turns reading the story aloud. When they finished the story, they 
went to the beginning of the story and read it again until they have read it at least 
three times. 
In addition, the participants used a three-step error-correction procedure when a 
student commits a miscue during reading, and the student who was assigned to read 
next was assigned the role of using this procedure.
The three-step error-correction procedure (Oddo et al., 2010: 848) is as follows: 
1.
Stop the reader and point to any word that the reader hesitated with, skipped, or 
misread. 
2.
The student needed to tell the reader the word. 
3.
The student needed to ask the reader to repeat the word and then continue 
reading. 

---

-212- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
The two treatment questionnaires were adapted from Hung (2012), and were utilized to 
explore the participants’ 
respective perceptions of the effectiveness, features and their 
attitudes toward the two types of learner-centered intervention. Both questionnaires 
were of five-point Likert scale, and contained twenty-one questions. The reliability 
coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha) for the questionnaire of the CARR group was .958, and for 
the questionnaire of the PARR group was .946. Item one to five of the respective 
questionnaires aim to reveal the participants
’
perception of the effectiveness of the two 
types of intervention. Additionally, Item 6 to 10 of the respective questionnaires aim to 
probe 
the participants’ attitude toward the features of the 
two types of intervention. The 
final eleven items of the two questionnaires examine the participants
’
acceptability of the 
two types of intervention.