: (2006) ,,,, ,,, ? (2) ? (3) [7 ] :,. E2mail :

Transcript

1 : (2006) : G442 :A , (11, ;21, ; 31, ;41, ) : -, 39, 23, 28, - : (1) -,; (2), ; (3), ;,, : ;; ; ; 1, ( map), ( [ m p ]), ( map), ; ( [ m p ]),,,,,,, 40,, [1 4 ] : (1) -,, : (1),; (2), [5,6 ],,,, :, [7 ] 68,, :,. E2mail : ) ( ),,, ( ) ( ),,, :,-, ;,,,,? (2) -,? (3),?, -,,, -,?

2 : - [1,8 11 ] : ( National Reading Panel) 2000 [12 ] :, : (1) ; (2),; (3), :,?,,,, 2 211,, : ;,,28,, 1 1 ( + ) ( M SD) ( ) 39 ( ) (16 + 7) ( ) ,,,,, ;, ;,, 212 9,,5,4,, 213 -, : (1),, ; (2), ; (3),,,,, , : (1) - A CVC ( + + ) 26,,, 24 :,,, : [ s m],, : [ s ] - [ ] - [m],,,,, :!,,,,, 10 1,, 24, (2) - B - A, 24, 0188 (3) - A CVC 26,,, 24 :,,, : [ m ] - [ ] - [ p ],, : [m p ] 69

3 2006 4,, - A,,, - A 24, 0190 (4) - B - A, 24,0180 (5) - A 26,,, : CVC CCVC CVCC CVCCC CCCVC :, :,,, :,?, : [m p ],,, : [m p ] [p ],? : [m ],,,,,,, - A,,, 8, (6) - B - A, 24, 0178 (7) - A 26,,, : CVC CCVC CVCC CVCCC CCCVC :,, 1,,,, :,?, : [m p ],,, : [ m p ] [p ] [ t ],? : [m t ],, 1, 139, 70, , (8) - B - A, 24, , : CVC 32 ( ),,, 30,,,, [m p ],, : [m p ],,,, 10 1,, 30, : (1) - A CVC CV 52,,, 50 :,,, 50,,, sim, [ sim], 3 ; [ s ], 1,,, 50,,,, 0193

4 : - (2) - B - A, : - ( ) - ( ),,, 48 90, 24,:,,,,,, -,,,,,,,;, (1) - A - A - A - A - A 6, 3 (2), 8, 3,15,, 24 ( :8 3 Π ), 360 (24 15 Π ) 24, 24 15, (3) - B - B - B - B - B 6, ,, :,, ;,,, 21613,, :,,, -, 3 311, 2 2 ( M SD) ( n = 39) ( n = 23) ( n = 28) : 24 ; 30 ; 139., 2, (one2way ANOVA) : (1),, F(2,87) = 2197, p > 0105 (2),, F(2,87) = 29175, p < ;, p < 01001,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) (3),, F(2,87) = 24111, p < ;, p < 0101,, p > 0105 (Bon2 ferroni ) (4), 71

5 2006 4, F(2,87) = 79124, p < ;, p < 0101,, p < 0101 (Bonferroni ) (5),, F(2,87) = 21100, p < ;, p < 01001,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) (6),, F(2,87) = 35114, p < ;, p < 01001, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) 312, 3 3 ( n = 39) ( M SD) ( n = 23) ( n = 28) 11155, p < 01001,, F(1,86) = 5108, p < 0105 ;,, p < 0101,,, p > 0105,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) (4),, F(2,86) = 42172, p < 01001,, F(1,86) = 19164, p < ;,,, p < 0101,,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) (5),, F(2,86) = 48106, p < 01001,, F(1,86) = 1160, p > 0105 ;,,, p < 0101,,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) (6),, F(2,86) = 4124, p < 0105,, F(1,86) = : 24 ; 30 ; ,,,,, (ANCO2 VAs) : (1),, F(2,86), F(1,86) = 34163, p < 01001, = 9160, p < 0101 ;,,, p < 0101,,, p < 0105 (Bonferroni ) (2),, F(2,86), F(1,86) = 21124, p < 01001, = 16116, p < ;,, 14125, p < ;, p < 0105,,, p > 0105,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) 313,?,, Pearson, Pearson : 3 p < 0105, 33 p < 0101, 333 p < ,( ),,, p < 0101,,,, p > 0105 (Bonferroni ) 314 (3),, F(2,86) =, 72

6 : -?,,,, 5 5 S E t p ,,, ( ),, :, 30 %, 29 % , :,, [3 ],,,? [5,6,13 ],,, : (1) ; (2),?? : (1),,,,,,,,;,, :,,, (2),,,,,,,, ;,, :,,,, ;,, ;,,, (3),,,,,,,,,, :,,, ;,, ;,,, (4),,,,,,,, ;,, :,,,, ;,,, ;,,,, :,, 73

7 2006 4, ;,,,,,, ,, :,, ;,, : (1) -,,; (2),,,,? : (1),,, ;,,,,,,,, :,,,,,,,,,, (2),, ;,,,,,,, 74 :,,,,,, (3) Pearson : ( ),;,;,; : ( ),,,,,,, (4),,,:,,,, :, 30 %, 29 % :, -,,, ;,,, :,,, ;,,,,,,, (

8 : - ),,,, -,,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,,,,,,, : [ 1 ]Ball E W, Blachman B A. Does phoneme awareness training in kin2 dergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spell2 ing? Reading Research Quarterly, 1991, 24, [2 ]Bradley L, Bryant P. Categorizing sounds and learning to read : A causal connection. Nature, 1983, 301, [3 ]Bus A G, van IJzendoorn M H. Phonological awareness and early reading : A meta2analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educa2 tional Psychology, 1999, 91, [4 ]Oudeans M K. Integration of letter2sound correspondences and pho2 nological awareness skills of blending and segmenting : A pilot study examin2 ing the effects of instructional sequence on word reading for kindergarten chil2 dren with low phonological awareness. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2003, 26, [5 ] Hatcher P J, Hulme Ellis A W. Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills : The phonologi2 cal linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 1994, 65, [6 ]Schneider W, Roth E, Ennemoser M. Training phonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia : A comparison of three kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2000, 92, [7 ].,,2002, (4) : [8 ]Ball E W, Blachman B A. Phoneme segmentation training : Effect on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 1988, 38, [9 ]Davidson M, Jenkins J R. Effects of phonemic processes on word reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Research, 1994, 87, [ 10 ]Fox B, Routh D K. Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1984, 76, [ 11 ]Torgesen J K, Morgan S, Davis C. The effects of two types of pho2 nological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Jour2 nal of Educational Psychology, 1992, 84, [12 ]National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read : An evidence2 based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its impli2 cations for reading instruction, Retrieved July 15, 2006 from http :ΠΠ www. nichd. nih. govπpublicationsπnrpπsmallbook. htm. [13 ] Yopp K. The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly,1988,23,

9 Effects of Integration Training of Phonemic Transcription with Phonological Awareness on Quasi2reading in English LI Qing2an 1 XU Ying 1, 2 ZHAN G Meng 1 LIN Chong2de 1 YAO Feng 3 LIN Yi 4 (11 Institute of Developmental psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing ; 21Department of Education, Henan Educational College, Zhengzhou ; 31 Fuxue Hutong Primary School, Dongcheng District, Beijing ; 41School of Psychology, Beijing Normed University, Beijing ) Abstract : In order to mainly investigate the effects of integrated training of phonemic transcription with phonological awareness on quasi2reading skills in English, a pretest2posttest, comparison group quasi2experimental design was adopt2 ed, 39 grade 1 pupils were used as the group of integrated training of phonemic transcription knowledge with phonemic segmentation and blending skills, 23 grade 1 pupils were used as the group of integrated training of phonemic transcrip2 tion knowledge with phonemic segmentation, blending, deletion and substitution skills, while 28 grade 3 pupils were used as the comparison group. It was found that (1) integrated training of phonemic transcription with phonological awareness could enhance the phonological awareness in English as well as the quasi2reading skills in English in grade 1 pupils ; (2) the waining of the quasi2reading skills in English in grade 1 pupils is helpful to their reading skills in English ; (3) both the integrated training of phonemic transcription knowledge with phonemic segmentation and blending skills, and the inte2 grated training of phonemic transcription knowledge with phonemic segmentation, blending, deletion and substitution skills, could enhance quasi2reading and reading skills in English in grade 1 pupils ; howerver the former one is not com2 narable to the latter one. Key words :phonemic transcription ; phonological awareness ; integration ; intervention ; quasi2reading 76