2009
DOI: 10.18222/eae204420092038
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Avaliação de um programa para o ensino de leitura e escrita

Abstract: RESUMOO presente estudo é parte de uma pesquisa mais ampla, que teve por objetivo avaliar a eficácia de um programa informatizado para o ensino individualizado de leitura e escrita e sua efetividade quando implementado em escolas, pelas próprias professoras. O estudo foi conduzido com 64 alunos que não estavam aprendendo a ler e escrever na sala de aula e que mostraram ausência de leitura em uma avaliação de pré-teste. Foi utilizado um delineamento de grupo em que o Grupo Experimental (N=38) foi exposto ao pro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
13
0
43

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
6
13
0
43
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, the scores in reading the target words were systematically higher than the scores in writing (dictation) the same words. These data follow the pattern shown in the literature of the area (de Rose et al, 1996;Hanna et al, 2004;Medeiros et al, 1997;Melchiori et al, 2000;Reis et al, 2009;Sella et al, 2010), which suggests that there seems to be no guarantee that the relations directly taught in the procedure, added to CRMTS tasks, will result in correct writing after the teaching of reading.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Overall, the scores in reading the target words were systematically higher than the scores in writing (dictation) the same words. These data follow the pattern shown in the literature of the area (de Rose et al, 1996;Hanna et al, 2004;Medeiros et al, 1997;Melchiori et al, 2000;Reis et al, 2009;Sella et al, 2010), which suggests that there seems to be no guarantee that the relations directly taught in the procedure, added to CRMTS tasks, will result in correct writing after the teaching of reading.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…As in Study 1, there was an increase in the percentage of correct responses for whole words in the reading and writing tasks compared to the performances obtained in the pre-test and in the unit post-tests, with the reading of target words scores systematically higher than the writing scores. These data maintain the pattern shown in Study 1 and in the literature (de Rose et al, 1996;Hanna et al, 2004;Medeiros et al, 1997;Melchiori et al, 2000;Reis et al, 2009;Sella et al, 2010). However, regarding the performance in writing tasks, the percentages of correct responses were more modest than in the first study and there were no tests in which 100% of the dictated words were spelled correctly by any of the participants.…”
Section: Ethical Considerationssupporting
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The results usually show that after the teaching procedure, the participants read the majority of the taught words, spell a high percentage of those words, and show the emergence of relations that were not directly taught between stimuli (de Rose et al, 1989(de Rose et al, , 1996Melchiori, de Souza, & de Rose, 1992Reis et al, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%