初级阅读教学:音节还是音素?以讲阿拉伯语的识字前学龄前儿童为对象的实验培训研究。

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Hanadi Abu Ahmad, David L Share
{"title":"初级阅读教学:音节还是音素?以讲阿拉伯语的识字前学龄前儿童为对象的实验培训研究。","authors":"Hanadi Abu Ahmad, David L Share","doi":"10.1037/dev0001855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study addressed four research questions: (1) Does teaching using syllables or using phonemes lead to better progress in beginning reading and spelling? (2) Does the effectiveness of syllabic or phonemic instruction depend on children's preferences for these units as predicted by Ziegler and Goswami's (2005) \"availability\" hypothesis? (3) Do children taught via syllabic consonant-vowel (CV) units spontaneously develop insight into the phonemic basis of an alphabetic writing system, and (4) Do individual differences in reading and spelling gains in phoneme-based instruction depend more on working memory, short-term memory, and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) owing to the greater number of units that must be rapidly retrieved and processed? To test these hypotheses, 104 preliterate preschool children were taught to read and spell using an unfamiliar script. Across 14 training sessions, children were taught using either whole CV units, phoneme units, or demiphoneme units. Retention and generalization were evaluated during training and 1 week later. Our results showed that CV-based teaching was found to be significantly and substantially more effective in terms of reading accuracy and speed than teaching via phonemes or demiphonemes. Ziegler and Goswami's (2005) availability hypothesis was not supported: All groups learned more easily with CV-based instruction regardless of their preferred phonological unit. In addition, some children taught solely via whole-syllable units showed evidence of spontaneously induced insight into the phonemic basis of alphabetic writing. Finally, working-memory, short-term memory, and Rapid Automatized Naming predicted learning via phonemes but not via CV units. We discuss the implications for beginning reading instruction in different languages and writing systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48464,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beginning reading instruction: Syllables or phonemes? An experimental training study with Arabic-speaking preliterate preschoolers.\",\"authors\":\"Hanadi Abu Ahmad, David L Share\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/dev0001855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study addressed four research questions: (1) Does teaching using syllables or using phonemes lead to better progress in beginning reading and spelling? (2) Does the effectiveness of syllabic or phonemic instruction depend on children's preferences for these units as predicted by Ziegler and Goswami's (2005) \\\"availability\\\" hypothesis? (3) Do children taught via syllabic consonant-vowel (CV) units spontaneously develop insight into the phonemic basis of an alphabetic writing system, and (4) Do individual differences in reading and spelling gains in phoneme-based instruction depend more on working memory, short-term memory, and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) owing to the greater number of units that must be rapidly retrieved and processed? To test these hypotheses, 104 preliterate preschool children were taught to read and spell using an unfamiliar script. Across 14 training sessions, children were taught using either whole CV units, phoneme units, or demiphoneme units. Retention and generalization were evaluated during training and 1 week later. Our results showed that CV-based teaching was found to be significantly and substantially more effective in terms of reading accuracy and speed than teaching via phonemes or demiphonemes. Ziegler and Goswami's (2005) availability hypothesis was not supported: All groups learned more easily with CV-based instruction regardless of their preferred phonological unit. In addition, some children taught solely via whole-syllable units showed evidence of spontaneously induced insight into the phonemic basis of alphabetic writing. Finally, working-memory, short-term memory, and Rapid Automatized Naming predicted learning via phonemes but not via CV units. We discuss the implications for beginning reading instruction in different languages and writing systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001855\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001855","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了四个研究问题:(1) 使用音节教学还是使用音位教学能使初学阅读和拼写取得更好的进步? (2) 正如齐格勒和戈斯瓦米(2005 年)的 "可用性 "假设所预测的那样,音节教学或音位教学的有效性取决于儿童对这些单元的偏好吗?(3) 通过音节辅音-元音(CV)单元教学的儿童是否会自发地对字母书写系统的音位基础产生洞察力;以及 (4) 在基于音素的教学中,阅读和拼写方面的个体差异是否更依赖于工作记忆、短期记忆和快速自动命名(RAN),因为必须快速检索和处理的单元数量更多?为了验证这些假设,104 名识字前学龄前儿童接受了使用陌生文字进行阅读和拼写的教学。在 14 节训练课中,儿童使用整个 CV 单元、音素单元或半音单元进行学习。在训练期间和一周后,我们对儿童的记忆力和泛化能力进行了评估。结果表明,在阅读准确性和速度方面,基于 CV 的教学比通过音素或半音素进行的教学要有效得多。Ziegler 和 Goswami(2005 年)提出的可用性假设没有得到支持:所有组别都更容易通过基于 CV 的教学进行学习,无论他们喜欢哪种语音单位。此外,一些只接受全音节单元教学的儿童表现出自发地对字母书写的音位基础有了深入了解。最后,工作记忆、短期记忆和快速自动命名可以预测通过音素进行的学习,但不能预测通过 CV 单元进行的学习。我们讨论了在不同语言和书写系统中进行初级阅读教学的意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beginning reading instruction: Syllables or phonemes? An experimental training study with Arabic-speaking preliterate preschoolers.

This study addressed four research questions: (1) Does teaching using syllables or using phonemes lead to better progress in beginning reading and spelling? (2) Does the effectiveness of syllabic or phonemic instruction depend on children's preferences for these units as predicted by Ziegler and Goswami's (2005) "availability" hypothesis? (3) Do children taught via syllabic consonant-vowel (CV) units spontaneously develop insight into the phonemic basis of an alphabetic writing system, and (4) Do individual differences in reading and spelling gains in phoneme-based instruction depend more on working memory, short-term memory, and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) owing to the greater number of units that must be rapidly retrieved and processed? To test these hypotheses, 104 preliterate preschool children were taught to read and spell using an unfamiliar script. Across 14 training sessions, children were taught using either whole CV units, phoneme units, or demiphoneme units. Retention and generalization were evaluated during training and 1 week later. Our results showed that CV-based teaching was found to be significantly and substantially more effective in terms of reading accuracy and speed than teaching via phonemes or demiphonemes. Ziegler and Goswami's (2005) availability hypothesis was not supported: All groups learned more easily with CV-based instruction regardless of their preferred phonological unit. In addition, some children taught solely via whole-syllable units showed evidence of spontaneously induced insight into the phonemic basis of alphabetic writing. Finally, working-memory, short-term memory, and Rapid Automatized Naming predicted learning via phonemes but not via CV units. We discuss the implications for beginning reading instruction in different languages and writing systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Developmental Psychology
Developmental Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.50%
发文量
329
期刊介绍: Developmental Psychology ® publishes articles that significantly advance knowledge and theory about development across the life span. The journal focuses on seminal empirical contributions. The journal occasionally publishes exceptionally strong scholarly reviews and theoretical or methodological articles. Studies of any aspect of psychological development are appropriate, as are studies of the biological, social, and cultural factors that affect development. The journal welcomes not only laboratory-based experimental studies but studies employing other rigorous methodologies, such as ethnographies, field research, and secondary analyses of large data sets. We especially seek submissions in new areas of inquiry and submissions that will address contradictory findings or controversies in the field as well as the generalizability of extant findings in new populations. Although most articles in this journal address human development, studies of other species are appropriate if they have important implications for human development. Submissions can consist of single manuscripts, proposed sections, or short reports.
×
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