Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2008
An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergartners who are at risk for reading difficulties.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ukrainetz Teresa A, Ross Catherine L, Harm Heide M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study examined 2 schedules of treatment for phonemic awareness.
METHOD: Forty-one 5- to 6-year-old kindergartners, including 22 English learners, with low letter-name and first-sound knowledge received 11 hr of phonemic awareness treatment: concentrated (CP, 3x/wk to December), dispersed (DP, 1x/wk to March), and dispersed vocabulary control (CON).
RESULTS: English learners performed similarly to native English speakers. Participants with moderate deficits in letter-names and first sounds showed significant benefits after both treatment conditions. Three times the intensity had no additional effect on phonemic awareness. CP continued to increase significantly during the no-treatment interval. In March, CP and DP were significantly greater than CON, but the 2 conditions did not differ other than with a minor DP advantage on last sounds. By May, there were no significant differences among the 3 conditions in meeting grade-level expectations for phoneme segmenting.
CONCLUSION: For phonemic awareness, over the course of a school year, with concomitant classroom instruction, the gains made from short, intense treatment were similar to those made from continuous weekly treatment. At-risk kindergartners with moderate deficits benefited more than those with mild deficits. Children, particularly those with mild deficits, may improve substantially with only classroom instruction and incidental self-regulatory gains from treatment for another area.
METHOD: Forty-one 5- to 6-year-old kindergartners, including 22 English learners, with low letter-name and first-sound knowledge received 11 hr of phonemic awareness treatment: concentrated (CP, 3x/wk to December), dispersed (DP, 1x/wk to March), and dispersed vocabulary control (CON).
RESULTS: English learners performed similarly to native English speakers. Participants with moderate deficits in letter-names and first sounds showed significant benefits after both treatment conditions. Three times the intensity had no additional effect on phonemic awareness. CP continued to increase significantly during the no-treatment interval. In March, CP and DP were significantly greater than CON, but the 2 conditions did not differ other than with a minor DP advantage on last sounds. By May, there were no significant differences among the 3 conditions in meeting grade-level expectations for phoneme segmenting.
CONCLUSION: For phonemic awareness, over the course of a school year, with concomitant classroom instruction, the gains made from short, intense treatment were similar to those made from continuous weekly treatment. At-risk kindergartners with moderate deficits benefited more than those with mild deficits. Children, particularly those with mild deficits, may improve substantially with only classroom instruction and incidental self-regulatory gains from treatment for another area.