Loading...
Publication
Instrução transmissiva ou construtivista nos programas de escrita inventada : Impacto na qualidade das escritas inventadas de crianças em idade pré-escolar
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29.73 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O presente estudo tem como objectivos especificar a eficácia de dois tipos de
instrução (transmissiva vs. construtivista) distintas nos programas de intervenção em escrita,
manipulando as palavras facilitadoras e o tipo de orientação dado para analisar e refletir
sobre as palavras escritas. Pretende-se verificar, por um lado, o impacto dos dois tipos de
instrução nas conceptualizações infantis, número de fonetizações e consciência fonológica.
Por outro, em cada um dos tipos de instrução, como é que a manipulação das variáveis
palavra facilitadora e orientação para analisar as palavras influencia os processos de
fonetização, o desenvolvimento das conceptualizações e da consciência fonológica.
Participaram 107 crianças entre os 5 e os 6 anos de idade que foram distribuídas por
7 grupos (6 experimentais e 1 de controlo). Todos os participantes eram estatisticamente
equivalentes no pré-teste quanto ao nível conceptual, idade, inteligência, conhecimento das
letras, consciência fonológica e nível académico dos pais.
Nos pré e pós-testes, as escritas inventadas das crianças foram avaliadas através de
40 palavras que nunca foram trabalhadas ao longo das 6 sessões de intervenção que cada
participantes realizou individualmente. Na intervenção o tipo de instrução variava em função
do grupo (construtivista ou transmissiva). Em cada sessão escreveram-se 10 palavras (2
facilitadoras por sessão) com as letras P e T. A natureza das palavras facilitadoras era
diferente consoante o grupo (palavra facilitadora com o nome da primeira letra ou palavra
facilitadora que se aproximava do som a primeira letra). Depois de cada palavra escrita as
crianças foram confrontadas com uma produção escrita hipotética de nível silábico duma
criança hipotética. Nessa confrontação era dado uma orientação especifica para analisarem
as palavras (centrados no nome ou no som). O conjugação da instrução x palavra
facilitadora x orientação foi a seguinte: G1 (instrução transmissiva x palavras facilitadoras
cuja sílaba inicial coincidia com o nome da letra x identificação do nome da letra; G2
(instrução transmissiva x palavras facilitadoras cuja sílaba inicial coincidia com o som da
letra x identificação do nome da letra); G3 (instrução transmissiva x palavras facilitadoras
cuja sílaba coincidia com o som da letra x identificação do som da letra; G4 (instrução
construtivista x palavras facilitadoras cuja sílaba inicial coincidia com o nome da letra x
orientações para uma reflexão centrada no nome da letra); G5 (instrução construtivista x
palavras facilitadoras cuja sílaba inicial coincidia com o som da letra x orientações para uma
reflexão centrada no nome da letra); G6 (instrução construtivista x palavras facilitadoras cuja
sílaba coincidia com o som da letra x orientações para uma reflexão centrada no som da
letra) e Grupo de controlo (desenhos livres com base nas palavras ditadas nos grupos
experimentais).
Os objectivos específicos foram comparar entre os participantes dos 6 grupos
experimentais e de controlo: os progressos nas conceptualizações sobre a escrita; as
diferenças no número total de fonetizações; as diferenças no número de fonetizações da
consoante inicial; as diferenças no número de fonetizações da vogal da primeira sílaba; as
diferenças no desempenho nas provas de classificação silábica e análise silábica; e, as
diferenças no desempenho nas provas de classificação fonémica e análise fonémica. Os
resultados mostram que as crianças cuja instrução foi construtivista evoluem do pré para o
pós-teste em todas as variáveis e tiveram melhor desempenho do que as crianças cuja
instrução foi transmissiva e do que as crianças do grupo de controlo. Verifica-se ainda que o
G6 teve, globalmente, um desempenho superior em todas as variáveis quando comparado
com os restantes grupo com instrução construtivista. Mostram ainda que os participantes
cuja instrução foi transmissiva evidenciaram uma evolução muito heterógena que não se
traduziu em diferenças significativas relativamente ao grupo de controlo. Entre os grupos
com instrução transmissiva também não se verificaram diferenças significativa.
ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study is specify the effectiveness of two types of instruction (knowledge transmission vs. constructivist) in different intervention programs with invented spelling, manipulating the words facilitators and the kind of guidance given to analyse and reflect on written words. It is intended to verify, first, the impact of the two types of instruction on children's conceptualizations, number of phonetisations and phonological awareness. On the other, in each type of instruction, how the manipulation of variables word facilitator and guidance to analyse the words influences the phonetic processes, and the development of the conceptualizations Participated 107 children between 5 and 6 years of age who were divided by 7 groups (6 experimental and 1 control). All participants were statistically equivalent at pre-test on the conceptual level, age, intelligence, knowledge of letters, phonological awareness and education level of parents. In pre -and post- tests, children invented spelling were evaluated using 40 words that have never been worked along the 6 intervention sessions that each participant performed individually. The type of instruction varied in intervention according to the group (constructivist or knowledge-transmission). In each session, each participant wrote 10 words (2 facilitators per session) with the letters P and T. The facilitator nature of words was different depending on the group (facilitator word with the name of the first letter or facilitator word approaching the sound of the first letter). After each word written children were confronted with a hypothetical syllabic level written production of a hypothetical child. In this confrontation was given a specific orientation to analyse the words (cantered in name or in the sound of the letters). The combination of the instruction x facilitator words x guidance was as follows: G1 (knowledge-transmission instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the name of the letter x identifying the name of the letter, G2 (knowledge-transmission instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the sound letter x identification of letter name), G3 (knowledge-transmission instruction x facilitators words which syllable coincided with the sound of the letter x letter sound identification , G4 ( constructivist instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the name of the letter x guidance for a focused reflection on the name of the letter ) , G5 ( constructivist instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the sound of the letter x guidance for reflection centred on the name of the letter ) and G6 (constructivist instructional x facilitators words which syllable coincided with the sound of the letter x guidance for reflection centred on the sound of the letter ) and control group ( free drawings based on the words dictated to the experimental groups) . The specific objectives were to compare between the participants of the 6 experimental groups and control: progress in conceptualizations about writing, the differences in the total number of phonetisations, the differences in the initial consonant phonetisations, the differences in the vowel of the first syllable phonetisations, the differences on tests of syllabic classification and analysis, and the differences in tests of phonemic analysis and phonemic classification. The results show that children whose instruction was constructivist evolve from pre to post- test for all variables and performed better than children whose instruction was knowledge-transmission and than children in the control group. It also appears that the G6 has, overall, superior performance in all parameters when compared with other group with a constructive instruction. Also show that participants whose instruction was knowledge-transmission showed a very heterogeneous evolution that has not translated into significant differences from the control group. Between groups with knowledge-transmission instruction also there were no significant differences.
ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study is specify the effectiveness of two types of instruction (knowledge transmission vs. constructivist) in different intervention programs with invented spelling, manipulating the words facilitators and the kind of guidance given to analyse and reflect on written words. It is intended to verify, first, the impact of the two types of instruction on children's conceptualizations, number of phonetisations and phonological awareness. On the other, in each type of instruction, how the manipulation of variables word facilitator and guidance to analyse the words influences the phonetic processes, and the development of the conceptualizations Participated 107 children between 5 and 6 years of age who were divided by 7 groups (6 experimental and 1 control). All participants were statistically equivalent at pre-test on the conceptual level, age, intelligence, knowledge of letters, phonological awareness and education level of parents. In pre -and post- tests, children invented spelling were evaluated using 40 words that have never been worked along the 6 intervention sessions that each participant performed individually. The type of instruction varied in intervention according to the group (constructivist or knowledge-transmission). In each session, each participant wrote 10 words (2 facilitators per session) with the letters P and T. The facilitator nature of words was different depending on the group (facilitator word with the name of the first letter or facilitator word approaching the sound of the first letter). After each word written children were confronted with a hypothetical syllabic level written production of a hypothetical child. In this confrontation was given a specific orientation to analyse the words (cantered in name or in the sound of the letters). The combination of the instruction x facilitator words x guidance was as follows: G1 (knowledge-transmission instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the name of the letter x identifying the name of the letter, G2 (knowledge-transmission instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the sound letter x identification of letter name), G3 (knowledge-transmission instruction x facilitators words which syllable coincided with the sound of the letter x letter sound identification , G4 ( constructivist instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the name of the letter x guidance for a focused reflection on the name of the letter ) , G5 ( constructivist instruction x facilitators words whose initial syllable coincided with the sound of the letter x guidance for reflection centred on the name of the letter ) and G6 (constructivist instructional x facilitators words which syllable coincided with the sound of the letter x guidance for reflection centred on the sound of the letter ) and control group ( free drawings based on the words dictated to the experimental groups) . The specific objectives were to compare between the participants of the 6 experimental groups and control: progress in conceptualizations about writing, the differences in the total number of phonetisations, the differences in the initial consonant phonetisations, the differences in the vowel of the first syllable phonetisations, the differences on tests of syllabic classification and analysis, and the differences in tests of phonemic analysis and phonemic classification. The results show that children whose instruction was constructivist evolve from pre to post- test for all variables and performed better than children whose instruction was knowledge-transmission and than children in the control group. It also appears that the G6 has, overall, superior performance in all parameters when compared with other group with a constructive instruction. Also show that participants whose instruction was knowledge-transmission showed a very heterogeneous evolution that has not translated into significant differences from the control group. Between groups with knowledge-transmission instruction also there were no significant differences.
Description
Tese submetida como requisito parcial para obtenção do grau de Doutoramento em Psicologia - Área de especialidade Psicologia da Saúde
Keywords
Instrução transmissiva Instrução construtivista Escritas inventadas Nome e som das letras Knowledge – transmission instruction Constructivist instruction Invented spelling Letters name and sound
Citation
Publisher
ISPA - Instituto Universitário das Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida