{"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}
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).
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.