This study tries to examine the possible relationships among cognitive tempo, reflection-impulsivity, and reading ability of foreign language, Japanese, on a perceptual level. The previous study by Kagan (1965) on reflection-impulsivity and reading ability among first graders is to be retested. 27 reflective, 24 impulsive, 13 fast-accurate, 15 slow-inaccurate English speaking children of ages 10-12 were tested for accuracy in reading Japanese with the following three hypotheses: 1) Reflectives would make fewer mistakes than impulsives in reading Japanese sentences orally. 2) Reflectives would make fewer mistakes in finding correct meanings of Japanese words in Japanese-English dictionary than impulsives. 3) Reflectives would resort to a more effective strategy in consulting dictionary than impulsives. It was also intended to see some possible relationships between types of reading errors and reflection-impulsivity. Reflection-Impulsivity (R-I) measures were obtained by MFFT (Matching Familier Figures Test originally designed by J. Kagan and revised by Furu et. al.), and their correlation coefficients with reading tests scores were computed with Japanese vocabulary scores partialled out. Two kinds of reading tests, oral reading tests and dictionary tests, were conducted on each of 79 children. Each child was asked to read aloud four Japanese sentences and his/her reading was taperecorded to be analysed later. Before reading, each subject (S) was instructed by an administrater (A) in English to "try to guess" or "skip" words if he didn't knowhow to read. On reproducing the tapes, (A) checked all the errors or omissions made by S according to seven types of errors on the check sheet and timed the seconds for S to finish reading each of the four sentences. Reading errors were assigned to one of the following 7 categories. No.1. Mispronunciation - S sounds out the world but does not pronounce it correctly. No.2. Meaningful substitution - S does not attempt to sound out the word and substitutes a new word that retains the meaning and coherence of the sentence. No.3. Nonmeaningful substitution - S does not attempt to sound out the word and substitutes a word that has neither phonetic nor semantic similarity to the original and alters the meaning of the sentence. No.4. Self-correction - S initially misreads a word but corrects himself. No.5. Intentional omissions - S does not read a word due to inability to decode it. No.6. Impulsive omissions - S does not read a word by mistake. No.7. Intrusion - S adds a word or a phrase that is not in the text. Categories No.2 and No.3 were pooled to form Kagan's impulsive errors, since Kagan regarded them as impulsive errors and found positive relationships with impulsivity. Categories No.2 and No.5 were pooled as Goodman's reflective errors since Goodman emphasises that meaningful substitutions are not reading errors but marks of understanding and that the more proficient a reader is, the greater the proportion of semantically acceptable miscues. No.5 was included in reflective errors, because intentional omissions are considered as results of reflection according to the instructions. Categories No.3, No.4, No.6 and No.7 were pooled as Goodman's impulsive errors. No.1 was excluded because mispronunciation is due to the inability to read rather than an impulsive error. Thus Kagan's impulsive errors (meaningful and nonmeaningful substitution) are contrasted with Goodman's impulsive errors (non-meaningful substitution, self-correction, impulsive omissions and intrusion) and Goodman's reflective errors (meaningful substitution and intentional omissions). For the dictionary test, a child was handed a Japanese-English dictionary and told, "I want you to look up some Japanese words in this dictionary and let me know." Five Japanese words spelled in Kanji, hirakana, and roman letters,
(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
抄録全体を表示
