Gottlieb B W
Am J Ment Defic. 1982 Sep;87(2):153-8.
Two competing theories of social facilitation, one stressing audience presence and the other stressing the threat of evaluation, were tested to determine their efficacy in predicting oral reading performance of 24 academically handicapped children. Each handicapped child participated in reading groups with 3 nonhandicapped children. Four conditions reflected audience and evaluation variables: alone/evaluation, alone/no evaluation, group/evaluation, group/no evaluation. Criterion was number of errors in oral reading. Results revealed a significant main effect for evaluation, indicating that academically handicapped children make more errors in oral reading in evaluative situations regardless of audience presence. Results were discussed in relation to mainstreaming. Specifically, the suggestion was made that it might be more advisable to educate academically handicapped children in highly structured settings, or nonevaluative environments, than to place them in classes with children of superior academic ability without meaningful preparation of intervention.
两种相互竞争的社会促进理论，一种强调观众在场，另一种强调评价威胁，通过测试来确定它们在预测24名学习障碍儿童的口头阅读表现方面的有效性。每个学习障碍儿童与3名非学习障碍儿童一起参加阅读小组。四种情况反映了观众和评价变量：单独/评价、单独/无评价、小组/评价、小组/无评价。评判标准是口头阅读中的错误数量。结果显示评价有显著的主效应，表明学习障碍儿童在有评价的情况下口头阅读时会犯更多错误，无论观众是否在场。结合主流化对结果进行了讨论。具体而言，有人建议，与将学习障碍儿童置于学术能力较强的儿童班级而没有进行有意义的干预准备相比，在高度结构化的环境或非评价性环境中教育他们可能更可取。
