A Comparative Study on Effects of Repeated Reading and Non-Repeated Reading on Young Learners’ Word Recognition and Oral Reading Fluency

• Main Authors: Chen,Hsin-Yi, 陳欣宜
• Other Authors: Feng-Lan Kuo
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/dvqk2w

碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 兒童英語研究所 === 106 === Repeated reading (RR) has been shown to be an effective strategy for promoting learners’ word recognition and reading fluency. On the other hand, reading different passages with overlapping words (Non-RR) without repetition was found to increase students’ exposure to vocabulary words, thereby improving their reading fluency (Escarpio & Barbetta, 2016; Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993). The results of previous studies revealed that RR and Non-RR methods were effective methods for enhancing learners’ word accuracy, reading speed and comprehension (Escarpio & Barbetta, 2016; Homan et al., 1993; Lin, 2011; Vincent, 2009). However, results of comparative studies showed that RR method is more beneficial in enhancing learners’ word recognition, reading fluency, and comprehension than Non-RR method (Escarpio & Barbetta, 2016; Vincent, 2009). It is likely that the teaching materials used in the Non-RR condition did not match the learners’ reading level, thereby causing those learners in the Non-RR condition hard to recognize words (Escarpio & Barbetta, 2016). In addition, based on the results of Rashotte and Torgeson’s (1985) study, it was found that if the stories contained high overlapping words in the Non-RR condition, the RR condition and the Non-RR condition could be equally effective in enhancing learners’ word accuracy, reading speed, and comprehension. Thus, the present study aims to compare the effectiveness between RR and Non-RR on EFL young learners’ word recognition and ORF by controlling the words exposed between the RR and the Non-RR. Participants were 44 fourth graders from two classes randomly assigned to the RR group or the Non-RR group. The experiment lasted 10 weeks, including two weeks for pretest and posttest and eight weeks of instruction. Four passages were chosen as the RR group’s teaching materials, containing two passages selected from Reading Naturally program while the other two passages selected from DIBELS. For the Non-RR group, eight passages were adapted from the RR group’s teaching materials, which contained over 70% of the same words. Instruments employed were two pre- and posttests for word recognition and a passage for measuring oral reading fluency and two versions of post-instructional questionnaires. Results of statistical analyses showed that learners’ from both the RR and Non-RR groups made significant growth in their word recognition and ORF. Moreover, the Non-RR group outperformed the RR group in word recognition and oral reading fluency. It is likely that reading two related passages every two weeks with high words overlapping rate can improve students’ word accuracy and reading rate. Additionally, comparing the students’ perceptions toward the respective instruction, the results revealed that the RR group held a more positive attitude than the Non-RR group. It is likely that students are used to reading a same passage repeatedly. In addition, students in the Non-RR group might feel that reading two related passages in a period of time was too much; thus, this might affect their learning motivation. It is suggested future studies could extend the instruction cycle. Furthermore, the number of times reread in RR group can be increased to three times, while the number of words read in the Non-RR group can be decreased. Additionally, future studies can integrate tutor training in order to provide feedback correctly and immediately to their partner.