基本阅读说明：两种方法的比较研究

原文作者：

Barbara W. Makar, M.A..

摘要：这篇文章给一年级的七个大致相等的班级通过两种方法（一种“基础法”（basal）和另一种“语音/音节法”（phonic））进行连续性（一年级和二年级跟踪实验）的比较阅读测试研究。实验后，通过定性和定量标准对每个阅读方法组的 21 名儿童在三年级进行了强化评估分析，证据表明，通过语音音节方法教学的小组成员具有更卓越的成就和更大的独立性。

关键词：基础法；语音法； 比较阅读

这项研究选择的社区是纽约卡梅尔，这是一个人口约 3000的小镇，为纽约州东南部普特南县的一个较大的学区提供服务。1963年9月进入肯特小学的公立学校一年级学生包括7个大小和成熟程度大致相同的班级，都由Lee-Clark进行阅读准备评估。其中六个班级都由老师使用基础阅读教学法进行阅读教学，并用关于鲁滨逊的《新基础阅系列读物》系列 2 中的材料，而其余的一组《麦克拉肯和沃尔卡特的基本读物》教材则采用语音的方法。在此项成就测试中还运用了著名的Meacute;tropolitan4 和 Wide Range仪器，这些仪器也将用于三年级分析研究。在三年级考试中还添加了其他测试，包括研究人员设计或改编的测试。

由于在组间比较中收集数据存在一定的局限性，因此我们在此 仅报告一个“实验组”（语音方法）的平均初始阅读准备度优于3 级，得分高于任何六个“控制组”（基本方法）部分。他们在一年级考试中确立了领先优势，到第二年春季时，他们的阅读和拼写成绩始终高于所有对照组的平均分数，超过了满分。即使没有某些可取的实验控制和统计意义的度量，差异也足够大，这具有重要意义，因此值得对其中一些儿童在阅读第三年的结果进行更详细的研究。到三年级时，实验组的21名孩子仍在他们一年级的班级里上课。与这些孩子配对的是对照班的其他21名孩子，他们没有参照成绩或其他标准进行选择，只是他们在学校常规提供的加利福尼亚州心理成熟度测试6上的分数。在只有一对中，智商相差多达五个点;许多个人分数是相同的，两组的平均分数也一样。

比较成绩的目的是要确定以“基础法”进行教学的孩子与以密集，系统的“语音”方法教学的孩子之间是否存在差异。以普通公立学校的教室条件，研究人员不仅尝试确定标准成绩得分的成就，还尝试比较各个孩子的优缺点，例如他们在阅读和书面工作中的态度，独立性和动机，解决新问题或不熟悉问题的方式以及他们所犯错误的种类。当没有完全成功时。这些差异是完全独立的，还是集体趋势？后者是否与最初的教学方法有关？存在的这种困难是否可以描述性地与文献中其他有关残疾的失败模式有关，特别是“特定阅读障碍”或“阅读障碍”？有没有一种方法能使处于学习能力边缘的儿童加重或减轻 这种困难？如果某些措施似乎可以预防这些孩子的麻烦，那么他们是否也对正常语言能力或较高语言能力的孩子感到满意，例如在未入选的一年级学生中到三年级就会发现？

Makar 夫人为都市和宽范围测试的这项研究仪器补充了自己的测试电池，继续了往年的记录并添加了每种仪器的算术分数。她还增加了口语段落阅读、句子阅读、小组和个人语音测试以及拼写测试。

标准成绩测试此处无需描述。像其他测试一样，它们于 1965 年 12

月下旬进行，当时孩子们的年级分是3.4。论文记录了个人的成绩等级，表1给出了小组平均值。再次没有给出统计学意义的数字，但是两组的IQ相等，算术差异很小，阅读和阅读差异很大。拼写似乎值得注意。

口头阅读。从适合该年龄段和7岁以下儿童的商业书籍（而非读者）中选择了一个 57 字的段落。这种选择在使用方面（如基础阅读器文本）或在面向语音的文本中发现的语音规律性方面，使严格的词汇控制最小化。据推测，该段将代表孩子在阅读时可能会遇到的乐趣或简单信息。四个简短的口头问题证实了他对内容的理解。检查了孩子的读数的准确性，但未计分时间。对错误的详细分析涉及：孩子无法弄清楚的单词（由检查者提供）；从形式不足的线索中猜测；纯粹根据上下文猜测不同外观的单词；完全“疯狂”的猜测；单词正确阅读一个地方，但在另一行上未知（测试段落中有两对）。对照组的孩子犯了 118 个错误，而实验组则犯了 12 个错误，大多数是前者，而后者都是由于形式线索不足而拒绝或猜测。这个数字显然是非常重要的。理解检查的错误在两组中大致相等分别为 11 和 14，每个组中有八个孩子犯了一个或多个错误。

表格 1

11 名实验组儿童和21名对照组儿童的三年级平均成就测试成绩

句子阅读。考试的第二部分包括八个句子。前四个句子（I，2、3、4）由从一年级和二年级的 《Scott-Foresman》阅读书中摘录的视觉词组成。其他四个句子（1-1、2-2、3-3、4-4）包含的单词在基础阅读器中并不常见，但仅通过替换初始辅音而与前四个句子中的视觉单词有所不同。这些句子用于确定对照组应用基础辅音程序中已讲授的初始辅音替换原理的能力。正在对实验组的语音能力进行 测试，而无需指示辅音替换。他们将使用在强化语音程序中教授的技能，以从左到右的顺序读出熟悉和不熟悉的单词。

视觉单词的句子是：

1. 迪克（Dick）和斯波特（Spot）骑到大房子里。
2. 黑色小马走得很快。
3. 迪克和蒂姆在路上不能打球。
4. 南希认为狐狸和熊是凶猛的。

（1. Dick and Spot ride up to the big house. 2. The black pony went fast. 3. Dick and Tim can not play ball in the road. 4. Nancy thought the fox and bear were fierce.）

在其中辅音替换的句子是：

1-1.幼崽和老鼠挖出并藏在沙子里。

2-2.托尼弯下腰。

3-3.灰蛇和蟾蜍游到小棍子上。

4-4.他不应该刺穿和撕破花哨的盒子。

（1-1. The pup and the mouse dig and hide in the sand. 2-2. Tony bent the last tack. 3-3. The gray snake and the toad swim to the small stick. 4-4. He ought not pierce and tear the fancy box.）

句子 1 中的关键词是 and，ride，up，big 和 house。句子 1-1 中的单词 sand，hide，pup，dig 和 mouse 已被辅音替换。句子 2 中的关键词是黑色，小马，去得快。句子 2-2 中被辅音替换的单词是平头，托尼，弯腰和倒数。句子3中的关键词是迪克，蒂姆，比赛，球和路。在句子 3-3 中被辅音替换的单词是 stick，swim，gray，small 和 toad。句子 4 中的关键词是南希，思想，狐狸，熊和凶猛。句子 4-4 中被辅音替换的单词是花哨，应该，框，眼泪和刺穿。

视觉单词句子及其配对的辅音替换句子的阅读被证明比段落阅读更具启发性。因此，对每个孩子的反应进行了详细检查和分析，并在研究中完整记录了下来。

表 2：在四个视词句和四个辅音替换句中，对照组和实验组错误读取的单词百分比

表 2 概括地显示了错误发生率，以每组漏掉的测试词的百分比表示：对照组中的许多人在视觉单词及其辅音替代类似物上都遇到了麻烦， 而实验组没有一个犯这样的“双重错误”。如同该段中的阅读错误一样， 对照组的孩子通常完全无法弄清一个单词或使自己变质错误，至少具有上下文错误和“野蛮猜测”错误。实验儿童仅犯了配置错误，没有一个犯超过两个。在某些情况下，对照组的孩子，即从未有过实验的孩子，则使用熟悉的押韵视词（用作老鼠的房子）代替无法识别的词。在该测试中，就像在段落中阅读的一样，实验组的能力和独立性似乎比其对照伙伴要强得多。

小组语音测试。这里使用了已发布的 McMahon 测试 8。它由考官讲的 40 个语音废话刺激音节组成，孩子在每个选项的四个可能选择中标记了一个相应的“单词”。个别语音测试。每个孩子都向考官“阅读”大约相同的 40 个刺激“单词”。不出所料，与对照组相比，实验组在两次测试中产生的错误更少（组测试中出现 150 个错误，个人测试中出现 154 个错误），而对照组则发生了错误（394 个和 462 个错误）。在这里，实验儿童再次显示出优越性，这表明面对未知世界的独立性。

拼写测试。选择基础和语音阅读器班级通常会遇到的频率大致相等的十个单词来构成拼写测试。他们是：之后，想要，开始，自己， 平时，成长，说话，喝酒，清洁以及哪个。（after, want, start, myself, play, grow, talk, drink, clean and which.）在这里，实验儿童也几乎没有任何麻烦。其中有6个与13个控件相对，省略了h，有时在处插入，但从未做出“疯狂的猜测”[“哪个巫婆，哪个hellip;hellip;？”]对照儿童的书面错误的传真看起来令人惊讶，就像我们习惯于在阅读障碍儿童的诊断记录中看到的样

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

ELEMENTARY READING INSTRUCTION:
A Comparative Study of Two Methods^[1]

Barbara W. Makar, M.A.

Seven approximately equated sections of a beginning first grade were introduced to reading by two methods, one 'basal' and the other 'phonic.' The children were tested in first and second grades. Twenty- one children from each reading method group were intensively evaluated in third grade by qualitative as well as quantitative standards. The evidence points to superior achievement and greater independence on the part of the group taught by the phonic approach.

Cannel, New York, the community chosen for this study, is a small town of about 3,000 population serving a larger school district in Putnam County in southeastern New York State. Its public school first graders entering Kent Primary School in September 1963 comprised seven classes of approximately equal size and maturity, assessed only by Lee-Clark Reading Readiness¹. Six of these classes were taught beginning reading by teachers using the basal reading approach and materials of the New Basic Reading series of Robinson, et al.², while with one group the phonic approach of McCracken and Walcutfs Basic Reading³ was employed. Tests of achievement used with these groups were the well-known Metropolitan⁴ and Wide Range⁵ instruments, which were used also in the third-grade analytical study. Other tests including some devised or adapted by the researcher were added at the third grade examination.

Because of certain limitations under which the data were collected for the inter-group comparisons, we report here only that one ^Kexperi- mentar (phonics approach) group, with .3 grade superiority in mean initial reading readiness, scored higher than any of the six 'control' (basal approach) sections. They established their lead in the first grade tests and by spring of their second year were consistently well over a full grade above the mean scores of all control groups in both reading and spelling- Even in the absence of certain desirable experimental controls and measures of statistical significance the diflFerences are large enough to give them importance and to have warranted the more detailed study of some of these children in their third year of reading, the part of the paper which this reviewer found especially interesting.

By third grade twenty-one children of the experimental section were still enrolled in the class with which they had begun. With these children were paired twenty-one others from the control classes, chosen without reference to achievement or other criteria except their scores on the California Mental Maturity Test⁶ which had been given routinely by the schools. In only one pair was there a difference of as much as five IQ points; many individual scores were identical, as were the mean scores of the two groups.

The purpose of the comparison of achievements was to determine whether differences existed between the children whose initial teaching had been 'basal' and those who had begun and continued with an intensive, systematic 'phonic” method, both in well-recognized text series under ordinary public school classroom conditions. The researcher attempted not only to determine standard grade score achievement but to compare such strengths and weaknesses of the individual children as their attitudes, independence and motivation in reading and written work, the types of approach to new or unfamiliar problems and the kinds of errors they made when not completely successful. Were these differences entirely individual, or were there group trends, and if the latter did they seem to relate to initial teaching method? Could such difficulties as existed be related descriptively to the patterns of failure described elsewhere in the literature concerning disabilities, especially the 'specific reading disability' or 'dyslexia?” Were there practices in either method which exacerbated or alleviated such difficulties in the children who were marginal as to language learning ability? If some measures seemed to be preventive of trouble for these children, were they satisfactory also for the children of normal or superior language ability such as one would find by third grade in an unselected population of entering first graders?

Mrs. Makar made up her test battery for this piece of research from the Metropolitan and Wide Range tests, continuing the record of previous years and adding the arithmetic scores from each instrument. She also added oral paragraph reading, sentence reading, group and individual phonics tests and a spelling test.

The standard achievement tests need no description here. They were, like the other tests, administered in late December, 1965, when the childrens grade placement was 3.4. Individual achievement grades are recorded in the thesis, with group means given here in Table 1. Again figures for statistical significance are not given, but the two groups* equality of I.Q., the very small differences in arithmetic and the much larger differences in reading and spelling seem noteworthy.

Oral Reading. A 57-word paragraph was chosen from a trade book (not a reader) suitable for children of this age and grade⁷. This choice minimized the factor of strict vocabulary control in terms of usage, as in basal reader texts, or of phonetic regularity, found in phonics-oriented texts. The paragraph, it was presumed, would be representative of those the child would be likely to meet in reading for pleasure or simple infer- mation. Four brief orally asked questions checked his comprehension of content. The childs reading was checked for accuracy but not scored for time. A detailed analysis of errors was concerned with: words which the child was unable to fig

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[272102]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word