本研究旨在了解並比較重覆閱讀及非重覆閱讀對於國小四年級學童的口語閱讀流暢度的影響。本研究以台灣北部某國小四年級中的兩個班級為研究對象，共為59人。此閱讀能力相近的兩個班級經隨機分派指定為重覆閱讀組及非重覆閱讀組。在為期16週，每週一節的實驗教學中，重覆閱讀組以重覆閱讀法每週閱讀同一本英文讀本，而非重覆閱讀組以非重覆閱讀法每週閱讀兩本讀本。兩組皆於教學前及教學後接受口語閱讀測驗，以了解接受不同教學法的學童在口語閱讀速度及正確性是否有差異。測驗所得的資料以成對樣本t檢定及獨立樣本t檢定分析進行統計分析。 研究結果顯示重覆閱讀與非重覆閱讀皆能顯著提升研究對象的口語閱讀速度及正確性。此外，非重覆閱讀與重覆閱讀對於受試學童的口語閱讀流暢度顯示相似的成效。此研究結果盼能提供教學者彈性的運用此兩種閱讀教學法並更加重視口語閱讀流暢性的重要。 / The study aims to examine and compare the effect of assisted repeated reading (RR) and non-repeated reading (Non-RR) approaches on EFL young learners' oral reading rate and accuracy rate. Two classes with homogenous reading level consisting of 59 fourth graders were selected from one elementary school in northern Taiwan and were randomly assigned to two groups, the RR and Non-RR group. During the 16-week instruction, one period of class per week, the RR group practiced reading aloud on one reader with assisted repeated reading approach, whereas the Non-RR group practiced reading aloud on two readers with assisted non-repeated reading approach each class. The data collected from the pretest and posttest assessing the participants’ oral reading rate and accuracy rate were analyzed by paired samples t-tests and independent samples t-tests. The results revealed that the RR and Non-RR groups performed equivalent growth on their reading rate and accuracy rate with significant improvement. It is hoped that the findings provide a deeper understanding on the effect of assisted repeated reading and non-repeated reading on EFL young learners’ oral reading fluency and are applied in classrooms.

Fluent reading has been described as the ability to read a passage with accuracy, at a steady rate, with minimal hesitancy, and good comprehension (Grabe, 2009; Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). Dysfluent reading can affect motivation for reading in English language learners, thereby limiting access to a wealth of language input from written texts (Taguchi, Gorsuch, & Sasamoto, 2006). Extensive research of repeated reading in L1 settings has been shown to increase reading fluency (Samuels, 1979; National Reading Panel, 2000), while comparatively little research has been done on repeated reading in L2 settings (Grabe, 2009). The objective of this eye-tracking study was to accurately document lower-level and higher-level reading processes in an immediate repeated reading exercise to observe how repeated reading affects reading fluency in adult English language learners. In our study, 30 students in an intensive English program in the United States read three short expository texts three times each. Eye-tracking showed significant increases in reading fluency measures in both lower-level and higher-level reading functions. For example, average first fixation duration decreased by 15 ms from the first to the third reading and average late dwell time decreased by 40 ms from the first to third reading. Repeated reading is an exercise that should be considered by educators to help English language learners increase their reading fluency with immediate repeated reading of expository texts.

No description available.

The current study examines the effect of repeated reading aloud upon speaking fluency. Because there is little evidence in the literature that the practice of repeated reading aloud can have a positive effect upon speaking fluency, the primary goal of this study was to investigate this relationship further. For the purposes of the study, speaking fluency was defined as fluidity and smoothness of speech with little pausing and hesitation. It is measured by evaluating the following fluency features: speech rate, number of pauses, length of pauses, phonation/time ratio, and articulation rate. The repeated measures experimental design of the study involved current and former Brigham Young University students learning Russian as a foreign language. They were divided into two groups: control and experimental. The participants in the experimental group performed repeated reading aloud activities daily, while those in the control group read the same passages silently. All participants took weekly speaking tests consisting of simple speaking prompts. The final post-test included both reading aloud and speaking tests. The speech samples collected from the tests were evaluated using computer-based analysis as well as scores from three raters who are native speakers of the Russian language. The statistical analysis and comparison of these scores revealed mixed results. The rater scores did not exhibit any statistically significant difference between the groups, which could be attributed to overall low inter-rater reliability and short duration of the experiment. On the other hand, the computer-generated scores for mean length of pauses, phonation/time ratio, and speech rate of the experimental group were better than those of the control group. This difference proved to be statistically significant based on the results of one-way and repeated measures ANOVA analyses. Unfortunately because of the high attrition rate and short duration of the study, these results cannot be generalized. Therefore further research is necessary to confirm or reject these findings

The ability to read aloud fluently is a reflection of one's ability to automatically decode words and comprehend text at the same time (Samuels, 2006), a task which may be difficult for many intermediate elementary students with learning disabilities (LD) (Ferrara, 2005). Previous research shows that audio-assisted repeated readings and goal-setting with feedback are effective methods of improving oral reading fluency (ORF) (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Morgan & Sideridis, 2006; Therrien, 2004) but implementing these interventions may be time-consuming for teachers and tedious for students. The purpose of this research was to determine the impact of including repeated reading interventions within a problem-solving framework of services for individual intermediate students with LD. Specifically, this study investigated whether a videotaped delivery method of a repeated reading intervention improved ORF at the same rate as a one-on-one delivery method for four fifth-grade students with LD. Using an ABCBC alternating-phases design, the single-subject study began with a short baseline followed by two treatment phases. Phase B utilized one-on-one repeated reading interventions delivered by an experienced teacher. Phase C utilized a pre-recorded videotaped version of the same teacher following the same procedures. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to determine the preferred learning method for each participant. The results of this research reinforced the use of repeated reading interventions for individual intermediate elementary students with LD. All four participants met or exceeded the goal of 25% improvement in reading rates. Results also suggest value in devoting time to the preparation of prerecorded videotaped ORF interventions in order to meet the needs of some struggling learners. Consideration of individual learner characteristics was discussed, as well as consideration of time constraints faced by both general and special educators.

Most would agree that reading fluency is a concern of every L2 teacher. Repeated reading (RR) positively affects fluency development, supported by much research with L1 children. However, relatively little focus has been given to L2 RR. Most research on RR in L2 settings has focused on audio-assisted RR, used insufficient data collection methods prone to human error, and taken place in an EFL setting. In our experiment, we used eye–tracking as a direct mode of measurement of the effects that RR has on early and late reading measures. In this study, 30 intermediate-level English language learners studying in an intensive English program in the United States participated. Participants silently read three carefully leveled narrative texts, three times each. As they read each passage, an eye–tracking machine gathered data on their eye movements. With immediate repeated exposure to the texts, students improved their reading fluency in both early and late measures of reading.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.