O n f e r e n c e

Results and Discussion 
The two treatment questionnaires consist of three sections. The participants were asked 
to rate their perceptions by choosing among 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 
(neutral), 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). Hence, the minimal mean score is 1, while 
the maximal score is 5.
The first section of the questionnaire (Item 1~5) was used to answer the first research 
question. 
The participants’ perception
s toward the effectiveness of the two types of 
repeated reading intervention were both positive as shown in Table 1. Independent 
samples
 t
-tests were further conducted to understand the response differences between 
the two groups for each item.
Group 
Item 
CARR group 
PARR group 
t 
p 
M 
SD 
M 
SD 
1 
4.18 
0.85 
3.78 
1.08 
1.368 
0.178 
2 
4.27 
0.82 
3.65 
1.15 
2.067 
0.045* 
3 
4.23 
0.86 
3.43 
1.16 
2.583 
0.013* 
4 
4.41 
0.85 
3.57 
1.19 
2.708 
0.01* 
5 
3.91 
0.97 
3.52 
1.47 
1.036 
0.306 
average 
4.20 
0.87 
3.59 
1.21 
1.952 
0.110 
*
p
< .05 
Table 1 The Participants’ Perception toward the Effectiveness of the Two 
Types of Repeated Reading 
Intervention 
For the first section of the questionnaire, the average mean for the CARR group was 
4.20, whereas that for the PARR group was 3.59. Though the average mean for the CARR 
group was higher than the average mean for the PARR group, the statistical analysis 
revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups. This indicates 
that the two groups generally considered the two types of repeated instruction to be 
effective. Among the 5 items in the first section of the questionnaire, results of 
independent samples 
t
-tests revealed that there were significant differences between the 
two group participants’ responses toward Item 2 (
t 
= 2.067, 
p
= 0.045), Item 3 (
t 
= 
2.583, 
p
= 0.013) and Item 4 (
t
= 2.708, 
p
= 0.01). With a respective mean score of 
4.27 and 3.65 for the CARR group and the PARR group for Item 2, the CARR group was 
found to highly agree with the statement that the intervention helped them read the 
words out loud correctly.
As for Item 3, with a mean score of 4.23, the CARR group was found to held positive 
perceptions toward the effectiveness of the computer-assisted repeated reading in 
increasing reading rate. Likewise, for Item 4, with a mean score of 4.41 the CARR group 
held highly positive perceptions toward the effectiveness of the computer-assisted 
repeated reading in decreasing the stop times during oral reading. 

---

-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.