Barbetta P M, Heron T E, Heward W L
Florida International University, Miami 33199.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):111-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-111.
We used an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of active student response error correction and no-response error correction during sight word instruction. Six students with developmental disabilities were provided one-to-one daily sight word instruction on eight sets of 20 unknown words. Each set of 20 words was divided randomly into two equal groups. Student errors during instruction on one group of words were immediately followed by the teacher modeling the word and the student repeating it (active student response instruction). Errors on the other group of words were immediately followed by the teacher modeling the word while the student attended to the word card (no-response instruction). For all 6 students, the active student response error-correction procedure resulted in more words read correctly during instruction, same-day tests, next-day tests, 2-week maintenance tests, and generality tests (words read in sentences).
我们采用交替治疗设计，比较在教认读单词期间积极的学生回应式纠错和无回应式纠错的效果。六名发育障碍学生每天接受一对一的认读单词教学，学习八组每组20个的未知单词。每组20个单词被随机分成两个相等的组。教师在一组单词的教学过程中，每当学生出现错误时，就示范该单词并让学生跟读（积极的学生回应式教学）。另一组单词出现错误时，教师示范该单词，同时学生看着单词卡片（无回应式教学）。对于所有6名学生，积极的学生回应式纠错程序在教学期间、当天测试、次日测试、两周后的维持测试以及泛化测试（在句子中认读单词）中，都能使更多单词被正确读出。
