Teaching Children to Read Irregular Words: A Comparison of Three Instructional Methods

IF 2.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
D. Colenbrander, Saskia Kohnen, Elisabeth Beyersmann, Serje Robidoux, Signy Wegener, Tara Arrow, K. Nation, A. Castles
{"title":"Teaching Children to Read Irregular Words: A Comparison of Three Instructional Methods","authors":"D. Colenbrander, Saskia Kohnen, Elisabeth Beyersmann, Serje Robidoux, Signy Wegener, Tara Arrow, K. Nation, A. Castles","doi":"10.1080/10888438.2022.2077653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose Children learning to read in English must learn to read words with varying degrees of grapheme-phoneme correspondence regularity, but there is very little research comparing methods of instruction for words with less predictable or irregular spellings. Therefore, we compared three methods of instruction for beginning readers. Method Eighty-five Kindergarten children were randomly assigned to either Look and Say (LSay), Look and Spell (LSpell), mispronunciation correction (MPC), or wait-list control conditions. Children were taught 12 irregular words over three sessions. Amount of instructional time and number of exposures to the written and spoken forms of the words was controlled across the three experimental conditions. After training, children were assessed on reading aloud and orthographic choice measures. Results Children showed evidence of superior learning of trained words in the LSpell and MPC conditions, compared to LSay and control conditions. Differences between the LSpell and MPC conditions were not significant. There was no evidence of generalization to untrained items. Conclusions Findings indicate that active processing of a word’s orthography is crucial for learning irregular words. These results have implications for initial reading instruction. Further research is required to determine whether differences between LSpell and MPC conditions emerge after longer periods of training.","PeriodicalId":48032,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Studies of Reading","volume":"26 1","pages":"545 - 564"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Studies of Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2077653","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose Children learning to read in English must learn to read words with varying degrees of grapheme-phoneme correspondence regularity, but there is very little research comparing methods of instruction for words with less predictable or irregular spellings. Therefore, we compared three methods of instruction for beginning readers. Method Eighty-five Kindergarten children were randomly assigned to either Look and Say (LSay), Look and Spell (LSpell), mispronunciation correction (MPC), or wait-list control conditions. Children were taught 12 irregular words over three sessions. Amount of instructional time and number of exposures to the written and spoken forms of the words was controlled across the three experimental conditions. After training, children were assessed on reading aloud and orthographic choice measures. Results Children showed evidence of superior learning of trained words in the LSpell and MPC conditions, compared to LSay and control conditions. Differences between the LSpell and MPC conditions were not significant. There was no evidence of generalization to untrained items. Conclusions Findings indicate that active processing of a word’s orthography is crucial for learning irregular words. These results have implications for initial reading instruction. Further research is required to determine whether differences between LSpell and MPC conditions emerge after longer periods of training.
教孩子阅读不规则单词:三种教学方法的比较
摘要目的学习英语阅读的孩子必须学会阅读具有不同程度的字形-音素对应规律的单词,但很少有研究比较拼写不太可预测或不规则的单词的教学方法。因此,我们比较了三种针对初学者的教学方法。方法将85名幼儿园儿童随机分为看说(LSay)、看拼写(LSpell)、发音错误纠正(MPC)或等待表对照组。孩子们在三节课上学习了12个不规则单词。在三个实验条件下,教学时间和接触单词的书面和口头形式的次数都得到了控制。训练结束后,对孩子们的朗读和正字法选择进行评估。结果与LSay和对照组相比,儿童在LSpell和MPC条件下的训练单词学习能力更强。LSpell和MPC条件之间的差异并不显著。没有证据表明未经训练的项目具有普遍性。结论研究结果表明,积极处理单词的拼写对学习不规则单词至关重要。这些结果对初步阅读教学有启示。需要进一步的研究来确定LSpell和MPC条件之间的差异是否在较长时间的训练后出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.70%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This journal publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and, occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature, papers focused on theory development, and discussions of social policy issues. Papers range from very basic studies to those whose main thrust is toward educational practice. The journal also includes work on "all aspects of reading and its related areas," a phrase that is sufficiently general to encompass issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, and assessment involving very young children and/or adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信