Barbetta P M, Heward W L, Bradley D M
Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, Florida International University, Miami 33199.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):99-110. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-99.
We used an alternating treatments design to compare the effects of two procedures for correcting student errors during sight word drills. Each of the 5 participating students with developmental disabilities was provided daily one-to-one instruction on individualized sets of 14 unknown words. Each week's new set of unknown words was divided randomly into two groups of equal size. Student errors during instruction were immediately followed by whole-word error correction (the teacher stated the complete word and the student repeated it) for one group of words and by phonetic-prompt error correction (the teacher provided phonetic prompts) for the other group of words. During instruction, all 5 students read correctly a higher percentage of whole-word corrected words than phonetic-prompt corrected words. Data from same-day tests (immediately following instruction) and next-day tests showed the students learned more words taught with whole-word error correction than they learned with phonetic-prompt error correction.
我们采用交替治疗设计，比较了两种在视觉词练习中纠正学生错误的方法的效果。5名参与研究的发育障碍学生每人每天接受针对14个未知单词的个性化一对一教学。每周的新一组未知单词被随机分成两组，每组大小相等。在教学过程中，一组单词出现学生错误后立即进行全词错误纠正（老师说出完整单词，学生重复），另一组单词出现错误后进行语音提示错误纠正（老师提供语音提示）。在教学过程中，所有5名学生读出的全词纠正单词的正确率高于语音提示纠正单词。当日测试（教学后立即进行）和次日测试的数据表明，与语音提示错误纠正相比，学生通过全词错误纠正学到的单词更多。
